Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

PARKESTON QUAY BILL [Lords]

Order for Third Reading, read.

Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified. Read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

PRIVATE BILLS (SUSPENSION)

Ordered,
That—

(1) the Promoters of every Private Bill which has originated in this House or has been brought from the House of Lords in the present Session of Parliament shall have leave to suspend any further proceeding thereon in order to proceed with that Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session;
(2) the Agent for the Promoters of any such Bill intending to suspend any further proceeding thereon shall give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than five o'clock on the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceeding thereon or, if the Bill, having passed this House, is then pending in the House of Lords, of their intention to proceed with the same Bill in this House in the next Session: provided that all fees due upon any such Bill up to that date be paid;
(3) a list of all such Bills, with a statement of the stage at which they have been suspended, shall be prepared by the Clerks in the Private Bill Office and printed;
(4) every such Bill which has originated in this House shall be presented to the House not later than the third day on which the House sits after the next meeting of Parliament;
(5) there shall be deposited with every Bill so presented a declaration signed by the Agent for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill with respect to which proceedings have been suspended at the last stage of its proceeding in this House in the present Session:
(6) every Bill so presented shall be laid by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the Table of the House on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the causes of Her Majesty's calling the Parliament have been declared thereunto;
(7) every Bill so laid on the Table shall be deemed to have been read the first and second time (if the Bill has been read a second time before its suspension); if such Bill has been referred to an opposed private bill Committee during the present Session and not reported by that Committee to the House—

(i) all Petitions against the present Bill presented in the Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session; and
(ii) any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;

if such Bill has been reported by any Committee in the present Session, it shall be ordered to be read the third time unless it has been reported with Amendments in the present Session and has not been considered as amended, in which case it shall be ordered to lie upon the Table; and if such Bill has been read the third time before its suspension, it shall be deemed to have been read the third time;

(8) paragraph (2) of Standing Order 166 relating to Private Business (First Reading) shall not apply to any Bill brought from the House of Lords in the next Session and upon which the proceedings have been suspended in this House in the present Session;
(9) when any Bill which has been brought from the House of Lords in the present Session, and upon which the proceedings have been suspended in this House, is brought from the House of Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration, signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the House of Lords in the present Session and, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office that such a declaration has been so deposited has been laid upon the Table of the House—

(i) if the Examiner has reported either that the Standing Orders not previously inquired into which are applicable to the Bill have been complied with or that no Standing Order not previously inquired into is applicable thereto, the Bill shall be ordered to be read a second time, or, if it has been read a second time in the present Session, it shall be deemed to have been read a second time;
(ii) if the Bill has been referred to an opposed private bill Committee during the present Session and not reported by that Committee to the House—

(a) all Petitions against the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session; and
(b) any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;

(iii) if the Bill has been reported by a Committee with Amendments in the present Session it shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means who shall make only such Amendments to the Bill as have been made thereto by the Committee in the present Session, and shall report the Bill to the House forthwith, and the Bill shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
(iv) if the Bill has been reported by a Committee without Amendment it shall be ordered to be read the third time;

(10) any Bill which under the provisions of this Order is deemed to have been read the first time, or the first and second time, or the first, second and third time, shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having been so read;
(11) without prejudice to the provisions of paragraphs (7) and (9) of this Order, only those Petitions against any Bill presented in the present Session which stood referred to the Committee on the Bill and which have not been withdrawn or have been deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business (Reference to Committee of Petitions against Bill) shall stand referred to the Committee on the same Bill in the next Session;
(12) in relation to any bill to which this Order applies Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business (Right of audience before Committees on opposed Bills) shall have effect as if the words 'under Standing Order 126 (Reference to Committee of Petitions against. Bill)' were omitted:
(13) any Standing Orders complied with in respect of any Bill originating in the House of Lords, upon which the proceedings have been suspended in that House, shall be deemed to have been complied with in respect of such Bill if the same is brought from the House of Lords in the next Session, and any notices published or given and any deposits made in respect of such Bill for the present Session shall be held to have been published, given and made, respectively, for the Bill so brought from the House of Lords in the next Session;
(14) no further fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on a bill in respect of which fees have already been incurred during the present Session.

That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

To be communicated to the Lords.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Wandsworth

Mr. Thomas Cox: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the number of people registered as unemployed in the London borough of Wandsworth and the number of job vacancies registered at jobcentres in the borough.

Mr. Dubs: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people in Wandsworth are now unemployed; and what was the figure in May 1979.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Alison): At 14 April 1983 the number of unemployed claimants in the jobcentres areas which correspond closely to Wandsworth was 15,324. At May 1979 the number of registered unemployed in the area was 5,698. At 8 April 1983 the number of notified vacancies remaining unfilled at the jobcentres was 315.

Mr. Cox: Does the Minister have any idea at all of the destruction of job opportunities that this incompetent Government have caused in areas such as Wandsworth? He should hold his head in shame at the deplorable reply that he has just given.

Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman knows only too well that through their urban programme and other measures the Government have made considerable sums of money available to support employment in London, but it is hardly sufficient to offset the negative effect of rates in London, rising to nearly double the national average.

Mr. Dubs: Is it not true that the virtual threefold increase in unemployment in Wandsworth during the lifetime of this Government is almost entirely the direct consequence of their policies? Can the Minister suggest any possible reason why the 15,000 unemployed people in Wandsworth should vote for a Conservative candidate at the election?

Mr. Alison: I wonder to what the hon. Gentleman would attribute the doubling of unemployment under the 1966–70 Labour Government and the doubling of unemployment again under the 1974–79 Labour Government.

Mr. Adley: What is the relationship in Wandsworth between the number of job vacancies that are available at jobcentres and at private sector agencies? Does my right hon. Friend have a figure for Wandsworth? If so, how does it compare with the national figure?

Mr. Alison: There are about 315 job vacancies at jobcentres in Wandsworth. One needs to multiply that figure by three to get the overall total, including the private sector.

Secret Ballots

Mr. John Townend: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will expedite proposed legislation for secret ballots for strikes.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Tebbit): I am still considering the responses to

the Green Paper "Democracy in Trade Unions", but I hope to make known my conclusions on possible further legislation in the near future.

Mr. Townend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that secret ballots are a more democratic way of taking important decisions than mass meetings, where it is almost impossible to get a proper count and there is always the danger of intimidation? Does he further agree that in a secret ballot the men are more likely to take notice of their wives' opinions, which invariably are more sensible, than of their shop stewards' opinions?

Mr. Tebbit: Yes. There is little doubt that the vast majority of people would agree that it is right, wherever possible, to have secret ballots among members of trade unions before they are called out on strike. Indeed, I would go further and echo the words of Mr. Sidney Weighell, who recently said:
I am leaving the trades union movement I joined 44 years ago with a stark warning to those who remain: get rid of the crazy Left before they get rid of you.

Mr. John Evans: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the overwhelming majority of strikes are settled within three days? Will he also confirm that he never had any intention of introducing legislation along these lines and that it was simply a propaganda exercise on behalf of the Tory party?

Mr. Tebbit: No, I cannot confirm the second of the hon. Gentleman's points, because it is not true. It is right that most strikes are settled very quickly, and the legislation that I shall bring forward in the next Parliament will take account of that.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is nothing much wrong with British trade unionism that democracy cannot cure and that secret ballots for democracy are preferable to hands up for a dubious democracy at a mass meeting?

Mr. Tebbit: Yes, indeed. It is important that people should understand the issues that are involved. On 9 June electors will vote in secret and their votes will be counted by independent scrutineers. I think that people will find it extraordinary that the Labour party should stand on a platform which says that trade unionists should not have such rights by law within their unions.

Mr. Harold Walker: Will not the same electors find it no less extraordinary that a Secretary of State who promises ballots for officers in trade unions and other organisations should himself be a senior figure in a party that has no ballots for any of its senior officers?

Mr. Tebbit: They would if that were true, but it is completely untrue.

Cumbria

Mr. Campbell-Savours: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what increase there has been in unemployment in the county of Cumbria since the month of May in 1979.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Selwyn Gummer): Between May 1979 and October 1982 the number of registered unemployed in the county increased by 136 per cent. Between October 1982 and April 1983 the number of unemployed claimants increased by 14,034.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister aware that unemployment in Workington has tripled under the Government? Is it not a shabby, insensitive, uncaring and intolerant Government who force my constituents on the dole and then oblige them to live on benefit payments which are insufficient to meet their daily needs, while the Secretary of State's responsibilities are geared not to the level of benefit payments but simply to ensuring that my constituents are out of work? Is it not wrong and immoral of the Government to impose such a burden on the working people of Britain?

Mr. Gummer: The answer is no, Sir. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will explain to his constituents how he intends to support the Labour party's policy when it comes to the nuclear submarine which Vickers at Barrow will build and which will provide many jobs in the county of Cumbria. That is what his question was about.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Did not the constituents of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) suffer severe damage from the steel strike which lost for British Steel, possibly for ever, many of its traditional markets? What did the hon. Gentleman do to dissuade his constituents from destroying their livelihood in that steel strike?

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that the people of Cumbria, like those in the rest of the United Kingdom, know very well that the way in which unemployment has increased in Britain has much to do with the way in which we have priced ourselves out of markets throughout the world and that one of the ways that we have done that has been to strike instead of increasing our productivity.

Mr. Radice: That is not true. Has the Minister noted that unemployment in the northern region, even on the so-called new basis, has risen from 105,000 to 229,000 since the last general election—a disastrous increase of 118 per cent? When will unemployment in the northern region begin to go down?

Mr. Gummer: Unemployment in the northern region will begin to go down when we win back the customers that we lost under successive Labour Governments who did not enable Britain to keep the competitive edge that we need. In the end, we can have jobs only from firms that sell goods at prices that people can afford to designs that they want to choose.

Mr. Ron Lewis: In view of the increasing number of people unemployed in Cumbria since the last general election, will the Minister be going to Cumbria during the next few weeks to apologise for misleading people with the Conservative poster displayed at the last general election?

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that many Conservative Members will be going to Cumbria and other parts of the country reminding people, as they know full well, that the only way to get more jobs is to produce goods that we can sell at competitive prices. There is no short way to achieve that. The Conservative Government, who will be the Government after 9 June, is the only Government who can achieve that.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the completely unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I give notice that I shall seek leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment in the next Parliament.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is addressing his point of order to the wrong person.

Young Persons

Mr. Barry Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many young men and women under the age of 18 years are without jobs or training.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Peter Morrison): At 13 January, the latest date for which the quarterly age analysis is available, there were 123,769 men and 97,976 women aged under 18 in the United Kingdom who were unemployed claimants.

Mr. Jones: Those are disturbing and serious figures. No Minister has given such serious figures to the House before. Do they not represent the humiliation and sense of hopelessness not only for the youngsters out of work but for their parents? Are not the figures the most ghastly aspect of the Government's mass unemployment policy? Did not the Conservative Government in 1979 promise that real jobs would be given to unemployed youngsters?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman has obviously failed to notice that the Government have introduced the youth training scheme with enough places for 460,000 16 and 17-year-old entrants. Surely, with the Labour party supporting that scheme, he must realise that the Government have played a positive role in helping to solve the problem.

Mr. Foster: How many thousands of young people who left school at Easter and will return to take their examinations do not appear in the figures that the Minister has just given and will therefore not be able to receive benefits until September? Does he realise that those young people's families have to support them without any help whatever?

Mr. Morrison: I do not have the exact figure to hand, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that it they are taking examinations they will benefit from passing them by gaining proper employment.

Jobcentres

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total annual cost in rent and rates of his Department's jobcentres, at the latest date for which figures are available.

Mr. Peter Morrison: The total annual costs of rents and rates for the regional, area and local offices of the employment division of the Manpower Services Commission was £16—1 Million in 1981–82, the latest full year for which figures are available. Of this, £13 million was the cost of the local offices.

Mr. Adley: Is the figure that was given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in reply to the first question today — that three times as many jobs are available through private sector agencies as through jobcentres—an accurate national figure? If so, why? Is the taxpayer getting value for money from the jobcentres? Will my hon. Friend say something about the success or otherwise of the recent Saturday opening experiment?

Mr. Morrison: The answer to my hon. Friend's first point, is yes.
The answer to his second point, is that we want as effective a jobcentre network as is possible which is cost-effective to the taxpayer.
The answer to my hon. Friend's third point, is that it appears that the experimental Saturday opening of jobcentres has been successful. I regret that there have been demonstrations outside some of them which have stopped the unemployed from going to look for jobs.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister give a complete assurance that there will be a continuance of those excellent facilities and that we should resist the privatisation of that essential service?

Mr. Morrison: I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman is assuming that the Government will be returned at the next general election — [AN HON. MEMBER: "Grow up."]—It is not a matter of growing up. It was the assumption behind the hon. Gentleman's question. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government believe in the public employment service.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of registered unemployed in the United Kingdom and the latest estimate of the unregistered unemployed.

Mr. Tebbit: At 14 April the number of unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom was 3,169,879.
The 1981 European Community labour force survey estimates that in Great Britain in the second quarter of 1981, 400,000 people were seeking work but were not registered as unemployed.
The same survey suggests that at that time some 400,000 of the registered unemployed were not actively looking for work.

Mr. Canavan: Does the Secretary of State remember that in the 1979 election campaign the Tory party used Saatchi and Saatchi to plaster posters all over the country telling people "Labour isn't working"? Will the Secretary of State for unemployment use Saatchi and Saatchi this time to tell people the truth—that this Tory Government have increased unemployment by more than 160 per cent. and that the best way to get rid of mass unemployment is to get rid of this rotten Tory Government and replace them with a Labour Government committed to getting our people back to work?

Mr. Tebbit: I certainly remember the last election campaign, at which the Government were returned. I look forward to the next one with eager anticipation. I take note of what the hon. Gentleman says, but he must always remember that every Labour Government, from that under whom I was born and who cost my father his job, have left office with a higher toll of unemployed than when they entered office. The last Labour Government were no exception and any future Labour Government would no doubt have the same record if we were foolish enough to contemplate one.

Sir Peter Emery: How many jobs have been created by small firms in small industries during the past 12 to 18 months? Are not those jobs, provided without subsidy from Her Majesty's Government, likely to be long-term jobs?

Mr. Tebbit: I am not able to give my hon. Friend that figure, partly because the gathering of statistics on the

creation of new jobs is not nearly as effective as our recording of unemployment statistics.—[Interruption.]— The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) may find that funny, but he will have read the Employment Gazette, which recently showed that we have seriously underestimated the number of people in employment. I cannot give my hon. Friend the figure for which he asks, but since I last answered oral questions on 12 April some 7,883 jobs are recorded as having been created. Many more jobs have been created beyond those, and I will happily give my hon. Friend a list of those that have appeared.

Mr. Ioan Evans: The Secretary of State keeps quoting figures, but will he say yes or no to the fact that he has presided over the highest number of unemployed that we have seen in this contry since figures were kept?

Mr. Tebbit: Yes; and I regret that I have that in common with a number of other Employment Ministers scattered across the world. This problem has affected many countries. I have it, in common with Ministers who are presiding over the highest levels of unemployment in their countries. I remind the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) that the increase in unemployment since May 1979 has been higher in Germany, Norway and the Netherlands.

Mr. Barry Jones: Untrue.

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman says "Untrue". The latest figures available, using seasonally adjusted national definitions, show that between May 1979 and April 1983, German unemployment rose by 165 per cent.; between May 1979 and December 1982, unemployment in the Netherlands rose by 193 per cent.; from May 1979 to February 1983 unemployment in Norway rose by 144 per cent.; and in the United Kingdom from May 1979 to April 1983 unemployment rose by 143 per cent. The total numbers are larger because the Labour Govenment left a bigger toll of unemployment here than was inherited by the German Government.

Mr. John Townend: Will my right hon. Friend give the estimated number of unemployed who are actually working in the black economy?

Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend asks a question which it is impossible to answer. If we were able to identify those working in the black economy, we would follow up the matter and bring them into the white economy.

Mr. Varley: Will the Secretary of State confirm that he will be the first Secretary of State since the war under whom the number of people in work has been fewer than when he took office? Secondly, will he confirm that he personally was responsible for advising the Prime Minister to scuttle to a June election because the unemployment figures in September will rise dramatically?

Mr. Tebbit: The right hon. Gentleman knows full well the statistics that he quotes. I think that I must quote something to him. — [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I am going to answer the question.
The 1½ million unemployed is entirely due to an expansion of the work force in Britain. And over the next decade an additional 1½ million more will be in the labour force. That leaves, even with improved growth in the economy, us facing a possible 3 million unemployed by the end of the 1980s. To try to blame this on a mishandling by any Government, Tory or Labour, does not get us very far.


Those are the words of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), quoted in the Glasgow Herald on 4 August 1978.

Young Persons (Wages Council Regulations)

Mr. Stanbrook: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what schemes for providing work experience and training for young unemployed people are subject to wages council regulations; and why.

Mr. Alison: Wages council regulations apply to employees, including young people, who are employed in industries where wages councils were established because of low pay and the inadequacy of wage negotiating machinery. They may therefore apply to some young people participating in special employment and training measures who have employee status.

Mr. Stanbrook: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many employers who are anxious to help the young unemployed have participated in the schemes without being informed that they might subsequently be penalised by the application of wages council regulations?

Mr. Alison: If my hon. Friend is referring to those who take part in the young workers scheme, I should point out that the application form makes it plain that the scheme does not exempt employers from their obligations under a statutory wages order.

Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister agree that, under this Government, the observance of the provision of fair wages and conditions for workers, young or old, means that we shall shortly be observing fewer ILO conventions than are currently observed in Hong Kong?

Mr. Alison: I entirely dispute that observation.

Statutory Ballots

Mr. Norman Atkinson: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he has had any further discussions with the Confederation of British Industry on the question of statutory ballots prior to strike action.

Mr. Tebbit: No, Sir. But I have had the benefit of the CBI's written observations on this issue in its response to the Green Paper "Democracy in Trade Unions".

Mr. Atkinson: Does the Secretary of State now realise that if secret ballots are statutorily enforced, the outcome of statutory ballots must equally be enforced? Does the right hon. Gentleman understand the implications that will arise when the police not only supervise a strike but enforce the outcome of a secret ballot?

Mr. Tebbit: I have heard some quite extraordinary pieces of convoluted logic from the hon. Gentleman, but never one quite as absurd as that. The hon. Gentleman must not allow his imagination to run completely wild, even in the atmosphere of an election. I intend to maximise the possibilities for trade unionists to secure strike ballots before strike action.

Mr. Renton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that recent experience at the British Leyland works at Cowley shows the need for strike decisions to be taken by a better and more democratic means than mass meetings where there may be intimidation by shop stewards? Can we expect early legislation on that subject from the next Conservative Government?

Mr. Tebbit: There is no doubt that anybody who saw on television some of the scenes during many recent strikes — car park meetings with no real check against outsiders, the cry, "Which way is it, brothers?", or whatever the question may be, and someone on the same level, not able to see across the meeting, shouting "Carried" before anyone has had an opportunity to see how many votes are cast — will be convinced of the desirability of secret ballots before strikes. I do not understand why the Opposition are so reluctant to help people to achieve the right to a secret ballot.

Mr. Park: Does the Secretary of State agree that if compulsory strike ballots had been in operation during the recent water workers' strike, that incident would have been unduly prolonged?

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman may make that assertion, but, to my knowledge, at no time during that dispute were the workers invited to vote in secret so that we could be sure that there was no intimidation. Therefore, we cannot know the answer to his question.

Enterprise Allowance Scheme

Mr. Lee: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how he is intending to promote and advertise the expansion nationally of the enterprise allowance scheme.

Mr. Peter Morrison: I shall issue a national press statement giving details of the scheme nearer the starting date of the extension, which is 1 August. Jobcentres and other selected offices will be issued with display material and explanatory literature.

Mr. Lee: I hope that my hon. Friend's Department will put significant resources behind the promotion of the enterprise allowance scheme. Is he aware that I have seen how successful the scheme has been in my local authority area of Pendle? Is he further aware that in that area, which will be one parliamentary constituency of Pendle, no fewer that 200 businesses have started under the auspices of that scheme? Does he appreciate that I have every intention of being in Parliament after the general election to ensure that those developments continue?

Mr. Morrison: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's concern for the scheme and of his encouragement of it in his area. It has proved very successful. I assure him that there will be publicity to ensure that the country hears of the national extension.

Mr. Craigen: Is it the case that the advertising agencies have been one of the few growth areas under this Government?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir.

Youth Training Scheme

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will strengthen the training component of the youth training scheme.

Mr. Peter Morrison: I am confident that the current criteria for designing youth training scheme programmes will provide a strong training component for all schemes.

Mr. Hooley: Is the Minister aware that the youth training scheme is a confidence trick—a pretence that


400,000 boys and girls now in the dole queue will have a future under this Government? Is it not true that while the Government pursue their economic policies there is no useful future for them?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench do not believe that the scheme is a confidence trick. They have fully supported it, as have trade unions and employers. Thousands of sponsors are coming forward and youngsters are interested in joining the scheme.

Mr. Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware of the Labour party confidence trick? Has it not stated that, if elected, it will introduce a training scheme for youngsters of 16-plus, for two years, which will pay its participants £25 a week? Has not the Labour party now had to admit that after taxation and loss of family allowance that wage will be worth only £9 a week? Is that not the biggest confidence trick of all time?

Mr. Morrison: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. As will become apparent during the next few weeks, the Opposition have not properly costed their proposals.

Mr. Barry Jones: What about the unemployed 17-year-olds?

Mr. Morrison: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the scheme is for 16-year-olds. We hope also to provide for an estimated 50,000 unemployed 17-year-olds.

Management and Trade Unions (Communications)

Mr. Madel: asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he next plans to meet the chairman of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service to discuss improvements in communications between management and trade unions; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Tebbit: I have frequent contact with the chairman of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service.
The Government are firmly committed to the principle that managements should, wherever possible, inform and consult employees about matters that affect them, and we take every opportunity to encourage employers voluntarily to develop procedures that suit their particular circumstances.

Mr. Madel: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the industrial relations legislation that the Government have passed has improved communications between management and unions and that the general support that the Government have given ACAS has greatly improved the atmosphere throughout industry?

Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend is right. I hope that the legislation that we put forward in the next Parliament will continue along that path.

Mr. Crowther: Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity, as soon as possible, to read the evidence taken recently by the Select Committee on Industry and Trade about the recent strike at British Leyland? Is he aware that he will then realise that that dispute, which caused the loss of a great deal of production, was due entirely to the utter failure of the management to consult the work force and to take note of its views?

Mr. Tebbit: I fancy that the hon. Gentleman had reached that conclusion before he took any of the evidence.

Mr. Cryer: Rather than the Government being so obsessed with anti-trade union legislation under the guise of improving industrial relations, why do they not take action to deal with the cause of the really serious loss of days of work, such as unemployment and industrial injury? Have not the Government done virtually nothing about that? Have not the Government had a report on the dangers of asbestos for the past four years? While they were producing vicious anti-trade union legislation, they were doing nothing about the dangers to workers by asbestos.

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman is wholly wrong. The Government have acted against asbestos. Britain is among the leading countries in the European Community in seeking to extend protection against the hazards of lead. We have strengthened our capacity, especially in some areas such as the Nuclear Inspectorate, where we have offered higher pay to the high-grade inspectors that are needed. There is no doubt in my mind that we have cared well and truly for health and safety.
I wonder why the hon. Gentleman is so obsessed with trying to stop trade unionists from having the right to ballot for their leaders, and why he is also so obsessed with doing all that he can to prevent me from bringing forward measures that will further enhance the opportunities of trade unionists to seek ballots before being put on strike.

Leigh

Mr. Cunliffe: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what were the numbers unemployed in the Leigh travel-to-work area in May 1979 and in April 1983.

Mr. Gummer: At May 1979 the number of registered unemployed in the Leigh travel-to-work area was 2,448. At April 1983 the number of unemployed claimants in the area was 7,355.

Mr. Cunliffe: Do not those figures reflect the total and abysmal failure of the Government's industrial strategy during their four years of office? Is it not a crushing indictment that the great monetarist experience, which was billed as a wonder cure for the British economy, has now proved a total failure? Are not those people now on the scrapheap with no future while the Government remain in office? Is it not to be welcomed that the electorate will have the opportunity of terminating the Government's term of office once and for all on 9 June?

Mr. Gummer: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the large increase in unemployment in the Leigh travel-to-work area. I hope that he will share my belief that the only way in which jobs will be created is if the national economy improves—I keep repeating this because it is true — so that we increase prosperity in Britain by producing goods that compete with those of our competitors. The hon. Gentleman may look forward to the election, but he will find that the Government will be reelected because the people of Britain know perfectly well that we have created the foundation for an increase in employment.

Mr. Winterton: While dissociating myself from the exaggerations of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr.


Cunliffe), may I ask whether my hon. Friend agrees that a number of those who have become unemployed in the Leigh area hitherto worked in the textile and clothing industry? If our partners in the EC can take special action to protect their industries and to provide the necessary safeguards against unfair competition, cannot my hon. Friend ensure that the United Kingdom Conservative Government take the same steps to protect the jobs of responsible people who have a great skill, whose industry is the third largest employer in the United Kingdom and which produces a massive export opportunity for Britain?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend will agree that textiles and clothing are already the most protected sectors of British manufacturing industry. The new multi-fibre arrangement will reinforce that protection. I am sure that he will further agree that within the European Community there are many more markets for our goods than there would be if we were thrown out of it, which the Labour party would like to see happen.

Ethnic Minorities

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will now take further steps to remedy the high unemployment rates suffered by ethnic minorities and, in particular, Asian women.

Mr. Alison: The Government's special employment measures already help many unemployed people from the ethnic minorities. My Department and the Manpower Services Commission try to see that the minorities get full benefit from these measures. The real hope for all unemployed people lies in the success of our economic policies.

Mr. Janner: May I suggest that the real hope for the unemployed is for the Government to be defeated at the general election? Is the Minister aware that the Government's failure to deal with unemployment, particularly among black and Asian minorities, is as dangerous as it is deeply resented?

Mr. Alison: The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that a great effort is made, particularly by the Manpower Services Commission, to give special encouragement and help to members of the ethnic minority groups to find work and obtain training and other forms of encouragement to get work. Indeed, they are disproportionately represented in the schemes in relation to their proportion in the total population.

Mr. Farr: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the present situation is the outcome of a lax and ineffective Government immigration policy, which is causing such pressure on jobs in the Leicester area?

Mr. Alison: I dispute that. Unemployment, particularly among Asian women, has risen sharply in recent years, due to largely to the decline of the textile and light engineering industries.

Jobcentres

Mr. Pawsey: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received about opening jobcentres on Saturdays.

Mr. Peter Morrison: My right hon. Friend has not received any direct representations, but we shall be following the progress of this imaginative experiment with interest.

Mr. Pawsey: I thank my hon. Friend for that typically helpful reply and ask if he will consider extending the experiment. Does he agree that if opening hours were increased more applicants could take advantage of the facilities being offered at jobcentres? Will he take this opportunity to deplore the activities of those irresponsible people who have sought to picket jobcentres?

Mr. Morrison: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that the jobcentres should give a service to the public. This experiment is designed to see whether that service is applicable on Saturdays and I applaud the commission for going ahead with it. I also agree that those who demonstrated outside jobcentres, stopping the unemployed coming in, were not exactly helping the unemployed, the very people for whom they pretend to speak.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Woolmer: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total number of unemployed, including school leavers, in Yorkshire and Humberside at the latest available date; and what increase since May 1979 this figure represents.

Mr. Gummer: At April 1983 the number of unemployed claimants, including school leavers, and not seasonally adjusted, was 297,548 in the Yorkshire and Humberside region, an increase of 190,148 since May 1979.

Mr. Woolmer: Is the Minister aware that within that disgraceful total in Yorkshire, the Batley and Spen Valley textile areas have experienced an increase in unemployment of 260 per cent.? Does he claim that to be a success of Government economic policy? Why have the Government appointed, and been sending around the west midlands, a Minister with special responsibility, yet have allowed the Yorkshire region to go unnoticed in Government policy? Is that because the Government have written off Yorkshire and the north of England in the forthcoming election?

Mr. Gummer: The Government are looking forward to a very successful result in the general election generally and in the north of England in particular. The hon. Gentleman is, as usual, full of dire sadnesses about matters that are the result of the policies of many years—

Mr. Haffer: Four years.

Mr. Gummer: No, not just four years, but many years, during which this country has become uncompetitive. What is exciting in the hon. Gentleman's region, as he knows, is the total of new jobs that have been produced by Gent, Microvitech, Dewhursts, Lay-E-Zee, Magnum International and many others. He never mentions those when he recites his long list of misery and unhappiness.

Mr. Waller: Is my hon. Friend aware that recent surveys of industry in Yorkshire and Humberside show considerable optimism about the future in terms of growth in the economy and in orders? Is he further aware that there is a good take-up in the measures that the


Government have introduced to encourage new technology, a sphere which offers the best hope for employment in the region?

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right about the optimism, but he might have added that it is applicable only if there is a Conservative Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. John Grant: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 10 May.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Grant: As the Prime Minister will doubtless be altering her diary for the next few weeks, may I ask if she will consider, before leaving office, popping up the road to the London borough of Islington and taking a firsthand look at the disastrous antics there of the extremist Labour council, one of the barmiest ever seen—

Mr. Skinner: It is doing a great job.

Mr. Grant: —and take the opportunity to explain to the people of Islington that what is happening is a gross betrayal of the two main pledges on which the right hon. Lady was elected, to cut taxation and cut the dole queues?

The Prime Minister: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is against extremism, and is against extremism as practised in Islington. Presumably he is against the very high rates there. We, too, are against them and will do everything possible to fight them.

Sir William Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in relation to public expenditure, the implementation of the overspending policies being advocated by the Opposition would mean the economy getting into a chaotic state, sterling collapsing and our probable recourse to the International Monetary Fund, which would be a disaster for this country?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. If the policies of the Opposition were put into effect—and they are the most extreme ever put before the electorate in modern times—they would be policies for inflation and enormous increases in expenditure, which would lead to corresponding increases in taxation, in borrowing and interest rates or the printing of money. They would be altogether disastrous.

Mr. Foot: As the right hon. Lady has had to clear up things in such an irresolute rush—against all her natural instincts, of course—will she tell us whether she has left behind in the pigeon holes that old Think Tank report which she and the Chancellor once favoured, which proposed attacks on the social services, and on higher education and the disruption of the National Health Service?

The Prime Minister: There is nothing irresolute about this Government — [Interruption.] — either in this Parliament or in the next. Indeed, what I think the right hon. Gentleman is really complaining about is that this

Government are too resolute, too decisive and too swift for his taste. Let him look at the manifesto and our policies on education. We now have record expenditure per pupil and a record number of teachers per pupil. Let him look at the manifesto and our record on the social services and the Health Service. Spending on the NHS, even allowing for inflation, is at a record level. Let him look at our record on pensions. They are higher than they ever were under Labour.

Mr. Foot: If the right hon. Lady takes such a pride in her resolution, may I ask her when the Secretary of State for Employment informed her of the likely unemployment figures for September? Were they not a major factor in making her cut and run, after all her promises? She tells us that she will protect the Health Service. Why, therefore, did she promise at the last election not to raise prescription charges and then increase them to £1·40?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is not correct. If he looks at the full quotation from the press conference he will find a sentence, which I well remember delivering, to the effect that no responsible Government could ever promise not to increase prescription charges. I repeat that now. The important thing is that the exemptions remain.

Mr. Foot: I say this in the best spirit of good will: we should be pleased if she would publish in the Official Report all the promises that she made at the last election.

The Prime Minister: They are contained in the manifesto, which, I assume, the right hon. Gentleman read. There is no point in adding to bureaucracy by publishing them in Hansard, although, of course, the right hon. Gentleman likes to add to bureaucracy.

Q 2. Mr. John Hunt: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hunt: Will my right hon. Friend proclaim from the rooftops today the fact that during the past three months private house building starts have been higher than at any similar period during the Labour Government and that home improvements are currently at their highest since 1974? Is that not a message of great hope and encouragement for the many young people who look increasingly to the Conservative party for a home of their own?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. Private house building starts for the first quarter of the year reached a record and home improvements, aided and abetted by grants, were the highest since 1974. The Government believe in owner-occupation, increasing it and making it available to all. It is a policy that we shall continue in the next Parliament.

Mr. David Steel: Although the Prime Minister has criticised the process by which trade unions will pay £3 million to the Labour party without reference to their members, we have not heard her criticise the process by which industry will give £20 million to the Conservative party without reference to its shareholders. Is she aware that, as the public know that he who pays the piper calls the tune, they might decide that the alliance is better value for money?

The Prime Minister: I have never seen £20 million or anything like it. I should like to have £3 million handed to us on a plate in a single payment. We have never had that. With regard to the trade union political fund, the right hon. Gentleman knows that the present rule is that people have to pay unless they contract out. Shareholders can sell their shares or make their views known by voting against directors at the annual meeting, without any effect on their future employment.

Mr. Proctor: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Proctor: Has my right hon. Friend read the letter from the Opposition to the Kremlin—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Reading".]—asking what its response would be to the United Kingdom doing away with its nuclear weaponry? Does my right hon. Friend—

Mr. Canavan: Speak up.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no excuse, even with all the excitement, for not allowing an hon. Member to speak—

Mr. William Hamilton: He should not read.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The sands of time are running out.

Mr. Proctor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Soviet response would he to accept the Labour party's naivety in this matter and continue with nuclear weapons and, in addition, increase its nuclear capability?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that the Opposition's defence policy is the most misguided and dangerous ever put before the British people. It puts in doubt our security and the defence of our traditional way of life. I hope that it will be firmly rejected. As regards the letter to Mr. Andropov, I notice that it was Mr. Andropov who was reported as saying:
Let no one expect unilateral disarmament from us. We are not a naive people.

Mr. Foot: If the right hon. Lady was so interested in discussing disarmament, why did she cut and run and abandon that debate? If we had had our way it would have been debated in the House today. It was the right hon. Lady and her Government who ran away from it.

The Prime Minister: Never has a party been more reluctant to enter a general election, having asked for it in the House month after month. I am only too delighted to discuss defence. There will be no more important subject for the next four and a half weeks and beyond.

Mr. Stanbrook: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Stanbrook: Has my right hon. Friend seen that the CBI has called for the abolition of the GLC and the other metropolitan county councils, describing them as inefficient and overspending? Would not a single tier of multi-purpose local government be more efficient and closer to the needs of the people? Will my right hon. Friend therefore give it high priority in her second term of office?

The Prime Minister: I am not convinced of the need for a wholesale shift to single tier authorities. I certainly agree with my hon. Friend and the CBI and the GLC about some metropolitan counties. The GLC and ILEA are high-spending authorities. They place immense burdens upon the rates. We shall consider what the CBI and my hon. Friend have said about them.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Will the Prime Minister —instead of "Tebbiting" on consistently as she does about everyone else being responsible for unemployment except herself—take time today to tell the 1,040 youngsters in Hackney between the ages of 16 and 24, who are scrambling pathetically after 58 jobs, what the) have to thank her for?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is one way only to create new jobs.

Mr. Graham: Change the Government.

The Prime Minister: It is by producing good products at the right price, on time and with good services. When we can do that sufficiently well we shall have many more jobs. There is a need for greater co-operation between management and work force to ensure that we do not have restrictive practices, but a higher standard of industrial efficiency. One of the causes of unemployment is the fact that the hon. Gentleman and some of his supporters will not accept that.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Has my right hon. Friend time today to read the transcript of a broadcast in English by Radio Prague, in a Communist country, commending the speech in Sweden by the Leader of the Opposition running down this country?

The Prime Minister: I have no knowledge of such a broadcast, but I make the point strongly that the Leader of the Opposition's defence policy would bring rejoicing only in the Kremlin.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Will the Prime Minister include in the items to be proclaimed from the housetops the failure to fulfil the promises to abolish rates, to reduce unemployment, to reduce public expenditure and so on, and, in the Scottish context, the promise made by her right hon. Friend Lord Home that he would produce better legislation for Scotland, coupled with her expression that devolution was not finished All those promises have been broken during the period of office of the right hon. Lady's Government.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will not find in that last manifesto a promise to abolish rates.

Mr. John Evans: The one before.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman may go to the manifesto, but he will not find it. We fought the last election on the last manifesto. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that, unfortunately, we lost the 1974 election. History might have been different had we won it. With regard to unemployment, the right hon. Gentleman knows the recipe and the strategy for jobs, but he consistently refuses to accept it. With regard to public expenditure, I rather thought that right hon. and hon. Members in the Opposition had been urging me to increase it. It is welcome that the right hon. Gentleman urges me to reduce it. With regard to Scotland, we have the best Secretary of State for Scotland ever.

BILL PRESENTED

CHILD ABDUCTION (CRIMINAL OFFENCE)

Mr. Robert Rhodes James, supported by Dr. Brian Mawhinney and Mr. Tim Sainsbury, presented a Bill to make child abduction a criminal offence; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 17 June and to be printed. [Bill 152.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That in respect of the Importation of Milk Bill, if the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House, further proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed and that as soon as the proceedings on any Money Resolution come to by the House in relation to the Bill have been concluded, this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.—[Mr. Cope.]

Co-ownership of Flats

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to give powers to residents of purpose-built blocks of flats in private ownership jointly to purchase the premises of which their flats are part; to specify the procedures to be adopted; to make consequential provisions as to the management and upkeep of premises so purchased; and for connected purposes.
The Bill is of importance for Londoners and of special significance for people living in the part of inner London that I have the honour to represent. There are two reasons why I believe that the House should approve the Bill. First, it should do so because it is a matter of simple justice. Some years ago the House was disturbed by the problem of people living in houses on long leaseholds and adopted the principle of leasehold enfranchisement. Under the present Government, I am glad to say, we have extended the principle of home ownership and made it possible for people living in council houses and council flats to buy their homes. That has been a successful and popular policy. However, the people who are left behind are those who live in mansion blocks and substantial conversions in private ownership. It is important that the House should consider the problems and the plight of those people, who ought to enjoy the benefits of home ownership, but often have serious problems in connection with their property, of which the House should take note.
Secondly, it is important as a matter of public policy that we should find a way of bringing forward the necessary finance to keep up to date the properties all over London—and in other cities all over Britain—that are privately owned and are slowly falling into decay. The problem is that after years of rent control the owners of such properties are extremely reluctant to spend the necessary capital upon them to bring them up to date, to improve them or even to maintain them as they should. All over London there are blocks of flats, some of them going back to Victorian times, some built before the war—substantial properties — and others built since the war that may have been built in too great haste. In almost all those properties substantial capital expenditure is necessary to ensure that they last and to make them suitable for modern needs. However, it is not possible to look to the landlords to find the capital. The interest of the landlord in all to many cases is to get vacant possession, so that they can use the site for another purpose, or to change the character of the block and increase their profits at the expense of the established residents.
This is not a simple matter of extending to people living in flats the benefits of home ownership. We need to consider the way of obtaining the money needed to maintain and improve these blocks. The Government might decide as a matter of national policy to make grants available for the necessary capital works, or money might be available through local authorities. I do not regard those as particularly hopeful sources of funds, but I do think that the tenants would often be willing to find the money if they knew that they were improving their own property and not simply enriching the landlord with whom they may be on bad terms or whom they may not even know by name.

There are cases in Kensington where it has not been possible to ascertain the name of the owner of the block, in spite of the legislation on that point.
There are many ways in which co-ownership of flats could be made statutory: we must make sure that we get it right. First, it is important to stress that there should be no question of confiscation. The valuation is most important and it must be fair to both parties. If the tenants cannot afford the market price of the block, by all means let the Government encourage the Housing Corporation, the building societies or other sources of finance to give them special help. There should be no question of the valuation being tilted in favour of the tenants so that the landlords get a raw deal. Some of the opposition to my Bill arises from the fact that many people consider that the enfranchisement of leasehold houses is not carried out on a basis that is fair to the owners of the property. However, I am sure that we can find a formula that valuers would accept for arriving at the proper market price of these varied properties.
Secondly, my Bill does not apply to single properties or to small lettings by owner occupiers. I shall specify in my Bill that not fewer than four flats should be required to be brought together to make a condominium that could exercise the powers that I recommend. Therefore, there is no threat at all in my Bill to small property owners.
Thirdly, in the Bill I have sought to make provision for continuity of competent management. The device that I have adopted is to require the residents to set up a company under a particular memorandum and articles. The tenants association would be able to exercise the powers that I propose it should have under the Bill only if it forms a company on the specified lines. The schedule to the Bill contains the model memorandum and articles for a tenants association seeking to acquire the property in which the members live, and to run it on common ownership lines.
The schedule is not my own work. If hon. Members study the text, it will be clear to them that it has been prepared by professional experts who are well informed about the management of mansion blocks.
Although it is obvious that my Bill will experience difficulty in completing its stages during the present session, I trust that the House will give me leave to introduce it and that it may be printed, if only because of the value that lies in the memorandum and articles as a model that can be used by tenants associations.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Brandon Rhys Williams, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. John Hunt, Mr. Michael Shersby, Mr. Martin Stevens, Mr. Neil Thorne and Mr. John Wheeler.

CO-OWNERSHIP OF FLATS

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams accordingly presented a Bill to give powers to residents of purpose-built blocks of flats in private ownership jointly to purchase the premises of which their flats are part; to specify the procedures to be adopted; to make consequential provisions as to the management and upkeep of premises so purchased; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 13 May and to be printed. [Bill 149.]

Cardiff, North-West (Writ)

The Lord President of the Council and the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I beg to move
That the Order [19th April], That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present parliament for the Borough Constituency of Cardiff, North West, in the room of Michael Hilary Arthur Roberts, Esquire, deceased, be discharged.
An explanation, Mr. Speaker, is necessary. The purpose of the motion is to take account of the changed circumstances since the House approved the previous order on 19 April. This Parliament will be dissolved in three days' time, at which point the by-election writ would automatically be overtaken. Therefore, it is sensible and in everybody's interest that the writ should not now be issued.

Question put and agreed to.

FINANCE BILL

Ordered,
That Standing Committee A be discharged from considering those provisions of the Finance Bill which have been committed to a Standing Committee and that those provisions be committed to a Committee of the whole House; that any stage of the Bill may be proceeded with at the conclusion of the preceding stage, notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the interval between the various stages of such a Bill; that on being reported from the Committee, the Bill, together with those provisions reported from the Committee on 28th April, may be taken into consideration as amended without any Question being put; and that notice of any Amendment, Clause or Schedule to be proposed on consideration of the Bill may be given at any time after the making of this Order.—[Mr. Biffen.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (FRIDAY 13 MAY)

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the Order of 4th November, Government business shall have precedence on Friday 13th May; and that the House shall not adjourn on that day until Mr. Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts which have been agreed to by both Houses.—[Mr. Biffen]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (BILLS REPORTED FROM STANDING COMMITTEE)

Motion made and Question proposed,
That any Bills reported from Standing Committee this day may be proceeded with after the conclusion of any proceedings on the Marriage Bill [Lords] .—[Mr. Biffen.]

Mr. A. J. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. What means are being taken to ensure that amendments tabled since Committee stage will be available to the House?

The Lord President of the Council and the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): These are matters within your discretion, Mr. Speaker, but I imagine that manuscript amendments would be acceptable.

Mr. Speaker: Yes. I think that they are in circulation.

Question put and agreed to.

Importation of Milk Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill is short and fairly simple. It is necessary as a result of the recent judgment of the European Court on the subject of UHT — ultra-heat-treated — milk. I shall remind the House of the background to the case. The court considered the case in May 1981. The Commission then applied for a declaration that the United Kingdom had failed to fulfil its obligation under article 30 of the treaty by making imports of UHT milk and cream subject to measures equivalent to quantitive restrictions. The Commission took the view that these measures were excessive given the nature of the product, and argued that public health could be adequately protected under a less restrictive regime. The Government stoutly resisted that view throughout the court's written proceedings and at the oral hearing on 10 May 1982.
The judgment of the court was delivered on 8 February this year. The court found that our regime was contrary to Community law. On the other hand, it recognised that our anxiety about the public health implications of imports was legitimate and it accepted our right to lay down objective conditions regarding the quality of milk before treatment and the methods of treating and packing UHT milk.
The court also accepted that Britain could stipulate that imports of milk must satisfy these requirements. While not going beyond the need to protect health, we could demand certificates to show that our requirements had been satisfied and Britain could prevent the entry of consignments not complying with its standards.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House advised the House of the outcome; he stated that the Government would comply with the judgment and that the necessary legislation would be set in hand as soon as the details of the judgment had been studied and after consultations had been held with the Commission and other member states. My right hon. Friend further explained that to deal with the immediate position created by the judgment and to retain full safeguards for public health, the Government were taking temporary precautions against the import of unsafe milk by amending the open general import licence, thereby prohibiting imports. That was only a temporary measure.
To enable Britain to comply with the judgment, it is necessary to establish a permanent regime. Accordingly, clause 1 allows agriculture Ministers to make regulations to govern the importation of milk and the use of milk once it has been imported. The clause is deliberately widely drafted, although its main purpose is to allow the prohibition of imports that are not of a description to be specified under the regulations and which do not comply with certain conditions. Those conditions are not specified in detail but may cover matters such as ports of entry and certificates to show that Britain's requirements are being satisfied. Regulations may also provide for the quality of imported milk, inspection testing and the disposal of such milk if the regulations are contravened or specified requirements are not met. The Bill contains a provision for appeals to magistrates for offences and for appropriate penalties. The Bill allows the Government to establish a


comprehensive milk import regime that will ensure that imports meet the same stringent health and hygiene requirements as are imposed upon our domestic production.
The Bill must do more than establish an import regime. Our domestic legislation must be altered to allow for the sale of imported milk and to make various other provisions to reflect the fact that imports are now allowed. Clause 1(7) allows Ministers to make the necessary regulations.
Clause 2 states that the regulations in question are to be made by statutory instrument and are subject to negative resolution. The clause also defines the terms used in the Bill and states that regulations may deal not only with milk and cream but with various milk-based products.
Clause 3 gives the short title of the Bill and states that it extends to Northern Ireland.
Work is proceeding on the regulations to be made under the Bill. The final shape of the regulations depends, to some extent, upon the outcome of discussions, which are continuing, with the member states. Those are continuing. The Government are in touch with various domestic interests. For those reasons, we are unable to give a detailed statement as to the contents of the regulations. However, their main effect will be to provide for the importation of UHT milk and cream and flavoured milk from member states subject to those products satisfying the same health and hygiene requirements on which, in the interests of public health, the Government insist for the production and processing of our own milk.
Such a regime would be in full accord with the court's judgment and with the undertakings that my right hon. Friend gave on 9 February, which received a broad measure of support. Furthermore, the Bill will ensure that consumers are protected against unsafe milk and that the producers and processors do not face unfair competition from milk that is not subject to the same stringent safeguards as apply to Britain's production.
The Bill is an essential part of that regime, and I urge the House to support it.

Mr. Mark Hughes: Although there are other matters that may attract the attention of hon. Members, we should not let this Bill go through without scrutinising it very closely. We are concerned about the continuation of a most valuable social and economic facility in this country—the doorstep delivery of milk. No one can be in any doubt that if the uncontrolled importation of UHT milk from the continent is permitted, it will pose a major and continuing threat to our dairy industry's ability to supply milk to the doorstep. No hon. Member would wish to take that risk.
I regret that the Government and others have seen fit to let the Bill go through on the nod at the fag-end of a Parliament, and that the opportunity open to the Dairy Trade Federation, the Dairymen's Association and others to offer amendments during the Committee stage has been curtailed. Had we been debating the Bill on Thursday, as originally planned, I would have urged my right hon. and hon. Friends not to vote against it but I would have sought a Committee stage that would have allowed many of the difficulties, fears and problems of the dairy industry to be highlighted and drawn to the Minister's attention.
Although we do not wish to prevent the Bill's passage, I must protest that many major interests in the dairy industry, such as those represented by farmers, the Dairy

Trade Federation, the Dairymen's Association and the Milk Marketing Board, have not been given an opportunity adequately to scrutinise the Bill's details. The classic convention that after a Bill has been published and given its First Reading there are then two clear weekends before it is given its Second Reading, and that there is a further period before its Committee stage, has been denied to the House. Indeed, it has been denied not only to the House but to important and crucial interests in the community.
It would be improper to seek leave to introduce manuscript amendments at this stage, but the best and easiest way of pressing my points on the Minister is to describe the quasi-manuscript amendments that we have in mind. At the beginning of clause 1, before the phrase "Regulations under this section", it should be made quite clear that any such regulations should be at least as rigorous as those set for the United Kingdom's farmers, dairies and milk industry. At present, the Bill enables the Minister to make regulations that could be less rigorous. At this stage in the Parliament I suppose that it is unnecessary to quote section 29 of the Food and Drugs Act 1955, and the regulations under which internal producers and processors are required to act. However, nothing in this Bill, as it stands, requires such stringency. Therefore, we are being asked to pass an enabling Bill that is less rigorous than any of the internal regulations for the importation of milk.
If milk goes through the UHT process it is no doubt made free from bacteria, but every farmer in this country must have his milking parlour investigated and the whole process of milk production, starting from the cow's udder, must be checked. However, there is nothing in the Bill's provisions to make that essential. It may be done under regulations, but it is not essential. When we come to the regulations, I should like a clear assurance from the Minister that for every consignment of milk, certification will include details of the quality and handling of milk before processing, the bona fides and technical qualifications of the processor and the UHT process involved, and details of packaging and transport from the dairy. We can then ensure that there is no lacuna whereby milk from an unfit herd is brought into this country.
For example, if milk from a high grade farm that has perfectly acceptable dairy facilities is transported through an area that has a notifiable animal disease, will the regulations provide for its prohibition? I am not satisfied that the position is clear in the Bill. If there is an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in, or near, one of the Channel ports, can milk from the hinterland be allowed through even though there is a minuscule risk of infection?
I turn to something that may well seem to be a puerile problem. The definition of milk in clause 2, which is central to the whole of the Bill, does not accord precisely with the definition that the Minister and I debated about 18 months ago during discussion of a statutory instrument. Where and how does semi-skimmed milk come within the definition of milk in the Bill? The Bill states, "'milk' includes cream." I had never thought that it did. I thought that cream was on the top of milk, but that is neither here nor there. The definition begins:
'milk' includes cream and separated or skimmed milk".
However, on the continent there is a clear rule. There, 1·5 per cent. or 1·7 per cent. counts as semi-skimmed milk and milk below 0·2 per cent. as skimmed milk. Why do not


the Government define milk as full, wholesome normal British milk with nothing added and nothing taken away and then define the inferior, lower grades of milk?
To take a simple example, in this country we demand that the temperature of raw milk being transferred from farm to dairy shall not exceed 5 deg. If it does, the milk can be rejected. Is the Minister satisfied that under the Bill she has power to ensure that that regulation can be applied to all the suppliers of milk to UHT dairies on the continent? Although there is a clear test for the presence of extraneous water, toxic residues and the like, is she absolutely satisfied and can she satisfy the House that the quality requirements will be fully met under any regulations and that the inspection and testing will be carried out in fully equipped laboratories by properly trained people? Can she satisfy the House that the manner of sampling and analysis has been effectively established and is routinely effectively maintained?
We are disturbed about all this because we believe that the arrangements for the registration of importers and exporting dairies are inadequate. Had there been a Committee stage, we should have considered carefully the possibility of an amendment or a new subparagraph to clause 1(4) because there are grave doubts as to the adequacy of arrangements for the registration of importers and exporting dairies approved after voluntary inspection.
A more serious problem is posed by the precautions to be taken in relation to infection or contamination of milk. The Bill is an enabling measure, but are the precautions sufficient? I understand that the requirements and penalties of the Food and Drugs Act may be a matter for trial on indictment, But I see no such power in this legislation. The Government may argue that it is unnecessary to seek such power, but I believe that it should be in the Bill.
The most serious criticism of the Government's handling of the Bill is that, to the best of my knowledge —I have taken advice on this—there was no adequate consultation with the Dairy Trade Federation, the Dairymen's Association, the NFU or the Milk Marketing Board. In view of the extraordinary circumstances, none of them now wishes to impede the progress of the Bill, but they all believe that the process of consultation must be assured once the Bill becomes law. They must be given the same absolute assurance from the Minister, in case by some mischance the Conservatives return to power after 9 June, as I now give from the Opposition Front Bench —that before any regulations are inttroduced when the Bill becomes law there must be satisfactory consultation and agreement with the interested bodies. They have been sold very short in the amount of consultation that they have had. I believe that it is fair to say that some of them feel very strongly that they are being asked to sign a blank cheque without any adequate guarantee that the regulations that may follow will be consequent upon satisfactory consultation.
I hope that the Minister will also give an assurance that the word "use" in clause 2(2) shall include cooling and distribution, as it does under internal regulations. It may not be necessary to spell it out in the Bill, although had there been a proper Committee stage we should have sought to do so.
There is also the difficulty of milk containing other material, such as raspberry or chocolate flavouring. One

of the difficulties in the legal case in the European court was that we always allowed the import of contaminated UHT milk so long as it was contaminated with raspberry flavouring, coffee flavouring or some other yucky substance when we would allow it in if it were pure. What are the arrangements under the Bill for controlling the level of contamination by such flavouring, however wholesome it may be to my children, if not to me? I hope that the Minister will provide an adequate answer on that.
At present, UHT milk commands less than 1 per cent. of total sales in this country, but there is a danger that farmers on the continent, buoyed up by a guaranteed market for butter, will sell their milk to butter factories which will then provide UHT, skimmed and semi-skinned milk for the supermarkets of this country at a price that will do mischief to the doorstep delivery. The Consumers Association and the consumer lobby make the valid point that the consumer should be able to obtain that milk at a lower price, but I say to them, "Beware". The cost in human happiness of the loss of the doorstep delivery is to be calculated not in pence per pint but in contentment of persons on a daily basis. Although we do not wish to inhibit the supermarkets from access to wholesome high quality UHT, semi-skimmed and skimmed milk, we must ensure that at every stage from the cow to the carton the same rigorous standards of hygiene are enforced on potential competitors as are required of our own domestic producers.
I am not satisfied that the Bill makes that requirement cast-iron. I should like the Minister to assure us that no dairyman or farmer in Europe is allowed to produce milk in less hygienic conditions and to send it in less hygienic conditions to dairies which can impose, via UHT, an apparent cleansing process that is to the detriment of a major industry and a major social service.
Although I do not urge my right hon. or hon. Friends to vote against the Bill, I ask the Government to accept that there are major shortcomings in it which, had we not faced prorogation and dissolution, we should have raised in Committee. Those hon. Members who had the good fortune to serve on the Select Committee on Agriculture which examined the dairy trade are well appraised of the problems. I do not believe that the Bill in its present form will solve those difficulties. I hope that the Minister will assure us that, if we are to suffer the misfortune of her party being returned to office, amending legislation will be introduced to correct those shortcomings, just as I assure the House that, when we are returned, such amending legislation will be introduced.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I associate myself entirely with the protest that has just been made by the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) against the selection of this legislation to be subjected to the rushed procedure resulting from the imminence of dissolution. That rush results in our not being able to consider the Bill carefully, still less to amend it.
It is obvious from the face of the Bill that it is of great importance to Northern Ireland. One reason why I associate myself with the hon. Member for Durham will become evident at once as I must apologise to the Minister and the House for the fact that a Select Committee which is obliged to arrive at its final report, also as a result of imminent dissolution, requires my presence in a few minutes. I hope that the Minister and the House will accept


my apology and that the Minister will be good enough to write into the Official Report during her reply the answers to the matters that I shall raise for clarification or satisfaction on behalf of those who are deeply concerned in the dairy industry in that part of the United Kingdom.
The House will be aware that there is a more strict animal health regime in Northern Ireland than there is even in the rest of the United Kingdom. That has been made possible by the separation of that Province from the rest of the United Kingdom by sea. The practicability of strict control and regulation of the movement of products is relevant to animal health. As a result of this Bill, that will be substantially modified for milk.
I should like to put some specific anxieties and problems to the Minister. The Bill acknowledges that the United Kingdom is prevented from imposing certain restrictions on importation from other EC countries into the whole of the United Kingdom of milk which does not comply with regulations which we would otherwise have imposed. In that respect, Northern Ireland is put on the same footing as the rest of the United Kingdom regarding imports from outside the United Kingdom. If the relevant animal health regime in the Irish Republic is the same as in Northern Ireland, that would not have any deleterious effect on imports to Ulster from the Irish Republic. Therefore, I should be grateful if the hon. Lady would confirm whether the relevant animal health milk regulations in the Irish Republic are as stringent and effective for purposes of animal health as those which are enforced in Northern Ireland.
Having put that matter on one side, I shall now deal with imports into Ulster from other parts of the EC and imports—although that is not the correct term inside the United Kingdom — from Great Britain into Ulster. Surely this legislation and the regulations made under it will create a prejudice and risk to animal health in the Province which did not exist hitherto. It stands to reason that if more stringent regulations govern the importation of milk into Ulster from the rest of Great Britain than will do so in future, there will inevitably be a relaxation of that protection for the Province, and animal health in the Province will correspondingly be more at risk following the European Court's judgment and this legislation.
I should be grateful if the Minister would make it clear, as I fear she will have to do, that in principle that is indeed the case. If that is so, she should put on record the extent to which animal health in the Province will be theoretically or practically prejudiced by the new circumstances—that there will be importation of milk from Great Britain or from the rest of the EC, other than the Irish Republic, into Ulster which was hitherto not at risk, on the ground of maintaining the uniquely high level of animal health in the Province.
I fear that in this, as with so many other matters, we are at the mercy of the machine to which we have entrusted ourselves by our membership of the European Community. The least that we can ask on behalf of our constituents is that the Government should be candid about the consequences to those whom we represent. I should be grateful if, on the lines that I have described in my questions, the Minister would do that for the interests that are concerned in Northern Ireland.
I repeat my apology, that I shall able to benefit from the Minister's reply only in written form, but that is the

form in which I assure her it will be anxiously and carefully studied by those concerned in the Province of Ulster.

Mr. John Spence: I should like to take up the point that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) made about animal health. I am deeply worried that sufficient scientific research has not yet been done to produce a conclusive answer to whether foot and mouth disease is carried through milk. With regard to animal health and British herds, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister would like to assure herself that UHT milk is not a carrier of that disease before regulations permitting the importation of milk are introduced in this broadly based Bill.
I was a member of the Select Committee on Agriculture. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister makes that Committee's report her private reading and has found matters of great interest in it. She will remember that we came down firmly on the side of maintaining the doorstep delivery. That point was adequately made by the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes). I wholeheartedly endorse his statement that doorstep delivery is uniquely British and hygienic, and that it brings with it a more developed form of customer service for which customers are prepared to pay. The introduction of regulations that may curtail doorstep delivery should be carefully considered.
The importation of milk may result in less milk being produced in Britain. I am not holding a torch for monopoly powers, but a diminution in the quantity of milk produced and consumed in Britain will, because we depend on dairy herds to supply beef cattle, have the knock-on effect of reducing the number of beef cattle on the market. If the inroads made by the importation of liquid milk were substantial, the knock-on effect would be serious. That considerably will affect my constituents who live on high ground and in the dales. Therefore, I hope that such social consequences will be considered.
The Select Committee came to the conclusion, although it may not have stated it in stark terms in the report, that before UHT milk is imported not only must it have a licence, but we must consider where it is produced and containerised and how it is transported. Many containers kept in one larger container for easy handling are stored on docksides and in railway stations in such awful conditions that the containers themselves will have to be certificated. Therefore, inspection at the point of production only will be insufficient and inadequate for our requirements.
I hope that the suggestions that have been made today will be considered.

Mr. Thomas Torney: I listened intently to my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) and to other hon. Members. It is interesting that, as in the Select Committee on Agriculture, of which I was a member, there is wide agreement across the Floor of the House about protection for our doorstep delivery service and for our health, which is affected by the milk we drink. I endorse my hon. Friend's excellent suggestions for amendments and suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary


and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that if their party returns to power after the little debacle we shall enter at the end of the week—

Mr. Geraint Howells: They will not.

Mr. Torney: I hope that they do not, but if by some misadventure they return to power, I hope that the Minister will consider those amendments seriously because they are necessary.
I must declare an interest in that I am sponsored in the House by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. I am interested in jobs. The union represents many thousands of milk distribution workers, including processors and retail roundsmen. Those people are afraid of this Bill, as are some of the big firms. Only 15 minutes before I came into the Chamber for this debate, the chairman of one of the largest milk distribution companies in the United Kingdom— he is president of the Dairy Trade Federation—spoke to me on the telephone and expressed his fear of the Bill and his regret that it was being pushed through. He agreed with the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Durham that there should have been consultation before the Bill was brought forward. There should also have been some consultation with the trade union movement. The two large trade unions in the dairy industry — my union and the Transport and General Workers Union—were not consulted but believe that they should have been.
The industry employs 100,000 people, about 45,000 of whom work on retail rounds. Anyone who knows the industry could tell us that the profit margin in the distribution of milk to the doorstep is narrow because transport and wages have become expensive. Doorstep deliveries are profitable only because of the great quantity of milk delivered. That is the only way in which it becomes viable—that word usually signifies redundancies—or worthwhile.
Dairy companies do not distribute milk to the doorstep simply because it provides such wonderful contact with the sick, the disabled and one-parent families. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has said often that it provides an invaluable service to such people, but the large dairy companies cannot afford to operate the service at a loss. Although only a small percentage of milk is imported into Britain and sold through the supermarkets, the difficulty and expense of providing the pinta on the doorstep means that it requires only a small reduction in the quantity delivered to the housewife for it to become uneconomic and unviable. If that happens, rounds will be cut and men will be sacked. The Government have a big enough record of job losses since they came to power. They should do nothing now to put more people on the dole, apart from the fact that we do not wish to lose this wonderful service. Nor do we wish to see a reduction in the amount of British liquid milk sold. No country can better the percentage of liquid milk that we sell, and we sell so much because of doorstep deliveries.
I appeal to the Minister to impress upon the Secretary of State the need for the Bill to be tightened. It is only an enabling Bill and we must wait to see what meat is in the pie when the Secretary of State makes the statutory orders. Let us hope that the Bill will enable him to make statutory orders strong enough to prevent the importation of foreign milk, to the disadvagntae of home producers. The

importation of foreign milk must not mean that one pint of home-produced milk is thrown away or one worker who processes or delivers milk to the doorstep is put out of a job.
Like the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), I apologise to the House and to the Minister that I have soon to go to a Select Committee, the same one as the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Spence) referred to. We are trying to get our report out tomorrow so that we shall not have wasted taxpayers' money and all the work that we have done. The Select Committee on Agriculture is a vital Select Committee.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister for not being here for her opening remarks. As the House will understand, Members are heavily committed and it is not always easy to be in the place that one wants at the right time.
I oppose the Bill. I can see no reason for its introduction at this time. I do not believe that we would be censured, taken to court or in any way penalised by the European Community if the Bill were not passed in the current Parliament. I see no reason for the undue haste with which the Bill is being rammed through the House of Commons against the wishes not only of milk producers but of the Dairy Trade Federation; I support the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Torney) who quoted the president of the Dairy Trade Federation who is chairman of one of the major milk distributors, Northern Foods, and who feels that there is no need for the Bill to come before the House in what I would describe as the limbo period of this Parliament.
I say this for many reasons, representing as I do an area in which there are many milk producers, farmers who have devoted considerable investment and who work seven days a week, 24 hours a day, to maintain efficient dairy herds. I also represent a number of milk distributors, not Northern Foods but including Healds Dairies Ltd., a private company and a highly efficient milk distributor which is extrememly concerned about the implications of the Bill, which is to go through all its stages today.
I find it strange that the House should be debating this matter when there are so many issues of far greater import to the people which should have the time of the House. I accept, as I presume the Minister said, that the Bill is basically widely drawn. I can understand the reason. Of course, we have to establish adequate controls for imports of milk.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South highlighted many of the points which I should have wished to make. The importation of milk not only could affect our dairy herds and the incomes of dairy farmers but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Spence) said, could have a domino effect on beef herds. As my hon. Friend the Minister knows only too well, the social service provided by the doorstep delivery of milk is greatly appreciated by many deprived groups. I refer particularly to the elderly, who welcome the six-day-a-week—at least—knock on the door, or, shall we say, the tinkle of milk bottles on the doorstep, and also to the sick, the disabled and single-parent families. All these people greatly appreciate the service provided by milk distributors.
I am not saying for one moment that the Government, the Opposition, my hon. Friend the Minister or anyone


responsible for the drafting of the Bill, including the bureaucrats in the European Community, are seeking to reduce a vital service. What I stress to my hon. Friend is that the impact of the Bill could have a deleterious effect upon this vital doorstep delivery service. This matter was touched on eloquently by the hon. Member for Bradford, South. Once the doorstep delivery has gone, as it has in so many other states that comprise the European Community, it will never come back.
It is easy to be wise after the event. If my hon. Friend can do nothing to redress what has happened, she should seriously consider the implications of a measure that is being put before the House in the last days of a Parliament. Why, for heaven's sake, could the matter not be put to the House after 15 June, which is when hon. Members will meet in this honourable place, or even after 23 June when Her Majesty the Queen, much respected by all, is, as it were, set upon a new programme by the new Conservative Government that will be elected on 9 June?
I did not agree with the comment of the hon. Member for Bradford, South about the disastrous impact of the Government's policies upon employment. Indeed, unemployment has gone up to a very high and unacceptable level. I want to do everything possible to reduce unemployment. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will admit that from time to time I have spoken from this side advocating measures that would bring down unemployment. I would point out to the hon. Member for Bradford, South and to the Liberal Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) that the Labour Government also doubled unemployment, so the Labour party has little to boast about on unemployment.
Can the Minister give the House an adequate reason why the Bill is being presented now and why it could not be presented to the House when the new Parliament is elected?
One important thing has been highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, who represents an area in the vales of Yorkshire where beef is of the utmost importance, and by the hon. Member for Bradord, South who for many years has taken a great interest in dairy matters and agriculture in general. Why do we have to introduce this measure? What is the urgency for it? What benefits will there be to this country in the next four weeks from the introduction of this measure? The point that both my hon. Friends made—which is valid and what the House is all about—is that before measures are introduced in the House there is normally time for adequate consultation. The hon. Member for Bradord, South highlighted the fact that there has been inadequate time for consultation, if any consultation at all, with those who drive the electric vehicles that deliver the milk to so many customers in this country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton said that there had been inadequate consultation with the farmers, the milk producers and the Dairy Trade Federation. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has been a distinguished member of the Government, and I hope that she will be back with an increased majority after the election on 9 June because she has done a considerable job with the responsibilities that she has carried. She might even suggest to my right hon. Friend that the Bill should be tactfully withdrawn during this last debate on agricultural matters—I believe that it is the last—in this Parliament and that it will be reintroduced during the next Parliament.
If this place is about anything—I know that you, above all, Mr. Deputy Speaker respect this—it is about consultation. It is about this House reaching reasonable and constructive decisions based upon fact, not fiction, and upon the interests of the British nation, not the interests of the EC. For those reasons I endorse, with some limitations, the remarks made by the hon. Member for Bradford, South. I completely endorse the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, who is deeply involved in agriculture matters—as I was for many years—as a Back Bench Member in his capacity as a member of the Select Committee and as an officer of the Conservative party committee on agriculture, fisheries and food.
I make a plea to the Minister. This Parliament is a democratic place. That is what it is respected for. Why is there any need for this Bill to be introduced now? I am unconvinced. I believe that the milk distributors and the milk producers are unconvinced and I ask my hon. Friend to have second thoughts. If she cannot, I hope that when she winds up, she will give assurances that no irretrievable decisions will be taken that could undermine a unique system—our doorstep delivery system—which ensures that this country of all the countries in the EC does not generate a surplus of liquid milk and that we have a healthy farming community. The farming community feels the domino effect. We may have cereal producers, but unless we also have the livestock producers, the cereal producers will be in trouble. Milk has a direct affect on beef and thus there is a domino effect.
I come from a constituency that is very urban in one part and very rural in the other—Macclesfield, in the northwest of the United Kingdom. I hope that my hon. Friend has heeded the genuine, sincere remarks that have been made from both sides of the House, and that, if she cannot withdraw the Bill, will give the assurances necessary to satisfy the concern and disquiet felt by both milk producers and distributors.

Mr. Stanley Newens: There are many issues on which I disagree with the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) but I agree completely with him in his opposition to the Bill. It is unnecessary for this measure to be introduced at this moment. The hon. Gentleman will probably disagree with me when I say that the introduction of the Bill is illustrative—although it is not the most important issue—of the bad judgment that we have had on so many matters from the Government.
There is great concern, and there has been for a long time, that imports of cheap milk from the EC would in due course be allowed into Britain in bulk and so would destroy the doorstep system, inflicting great harm on an important part of our agriculture industry. If bulk milk were introduced into this country, a proportion of doorstep customers would be induced to opt out and make their purchases from shops. This would have the inevitable result that dairy rounds would become uneconomic. Less milk would be consumed and sold, to the disadvantage of consumers, the dairy industry and farmers alike. Those of us who are speaking against this measure believe that it is in the interests of all three sections—consumers, the dairy industry and the farmers—that we should retain the doorstep delivery.
I declare an interest in that I am sponsored in the House by the Co-operative party, and I have in the past had


responsibility within the co-operative movement, which has a considerable trade in dairy products. Concern is deeply felt in the co-operative movement, but that concern is shared with every section of this industry. I appreciate that on the whole the importation of milk has been held back previously on health grounds, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Torney) has pointed out, there are other considerations.
We must consider the effects on employment and on the total consumption of milk. These are matters that we should not sweep under the table. If the Bill had been brought forward in the normal manner in a normal Session there would have been time to consider it in depth, but in these circumstances there has been no such opportunity. The Bill is being rushed through, and it may be that we shall agree to a measure that in some ways will do damage to the industry about which we are concerned.
I have been in touch with members of the Dairy Trade Federation and the co-operative movement and they have expressed the view that this measure could and should have been left for the next Parliament. For the life of me, I cannot understand the need for haste. The Minister herself said that many aspects of this matter are not yet clear and will have to be talked about. In these circumstances, would it not have made good sense to have postponed the Bill until those matters had been settled? There is no reason why it should have been put through at this stage. A court case would not have produced a crisis during the general election period and there would have been ample time in the future to deal with all the aspects that are at present unclear.
The Bill is to authorise the importation of milk. Whatever the Minister's intentions, as the Bill stands, regulations can be introduced that will make it possible to bring milk into this country. This is a very important issue and we should have had the opportunity to consider all the implications of the matter. The bulk of consumers, dairymen and farmers are utterly opposed to large-scale importation of milk, which would destroy the milk producing and distributing industry as we know it today. Therefore, I want certain reassurances from the Minister, although I hope she will excuse me if I say that I may have to read some of them after the debate in Hansard because, like certain other hon. Members who have spoken, I am a member of the Select Committee on Agriculture, which is due to meet at 5 o'clock.
I hope that the Minister will make it clear that there will be no let-up in our opposition to the importation of milk. I am well aware that she cannot commit the next Government, and if, as I hope, the next Government are a Labour Government, I am sure that we shall not allow the matter to go further. However, if there is a disaster, and a Conservative Government are again elected to office, the people who will be appointed to take charge of agricultural matters may not feel particularly deeply on this issue. In those circumstances we shall have passed a Bill that will make it possible to take steps that will do considerable harm to the farming and dairy industries of this country.
Many people in the dairy industry, as well as farmers and consumers, have always been afraid that ultimately this Government would sell out on this issue, and frankly,

that lack of confidence is not dispelled by the decision to put this Bill through at this stage. Indeed, there is little confidence about what is likely to happen.
My view is that we would have been much better off without this Bill at this stage. That view is shared by most of the people involved, who would have wished to be consulted on it. As drafted, the Bill could be a further step along the road to the destruction of our dairy industry. The Bill needs considerable amendment, and I am most unhappy about the threat that it represents. I therefore hope that when the Minister replies she will endeavour to make it quite clear that there will still be strong resistance to allowing milk to enter this country in quantities that will damage the part of our production and distribution which is of such great importance to our country as a whole.

Mr. John Farr: I support the Bill, and congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on the excellent speech that she made in introducing it. I apologise for the fact that, due to force of circumstances, I have been unable to remain here continuously since.
I share the concern of the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) about the haste and the way in which this important measure, which is quite an innovation, is being thrust on the House. However, I accept that there are special circumstances at present which must be taken into consideration.
I accept immediately that the Government need these powers, and that it is perhaps entirely through force of circumstance that the House does not have the time or opportunity—although it has the inclination—to carry out the detailed and searcing examination that a special Bill of this type, which introduces such far-reaching regulations, is entitled to—and indeed demands. I hope that after the election, when my hon. Friend is again sitting in her customary position at the Dispatch Box on this side of the House, we shall have a chance, if we allow the Bill to go through on trust today, to raise points after the measure is on the statute book and have a proper investigation.
I believe that the House is entitled to have—I am sure that we would have obtained it in Committee—statistical evidence about the present flow of milk from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. No doubt we should also have asked—I am sure that the Opposition would have asked in Committee—for details about the flow of milk and whether it relates to all dairy products going from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. We should have asked whether there was a flow the other way, and whether that too would be affected by the regulations, although I understand that that will not happen.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) raised an important question about the importation of dairy products into Northern Ireland from either the rest of the Community or the Republic of Ireland. I confess that I have an interest in the latter, and I shall be interested to hear my hon. Friend's reply to the right hon. Gentleman, who has had to attend another pressing engagement, on the subject of health standards in the Republic. It would be most unfair if the House were to impose this barrier between Great Britain and Northern Ireland when a similar barrier was not imposed on trade between Northern Ireland and the remainder of the Community.
There has been grave disappointment throughout the dairy industry at the recent judgment of the European


Court. The matter is particularly urgent and pressing—apart from the fact that we have an imminent general election—because speed is paramount. I am sure that that is why the whole House will accept my hon. Friend's explanation and allow the Bill to proceed. Although it is essential to give the Government the powers that they seek to control the quality of milk, it is important that all imports of UHT milk satisfy the same rigorous health and hygiene requirements that apply in the United Kingdom. I understand that after the Bill has been passed there will be detailed discussions about the regulations that are to be introduced. I hope that when my hon. Friend replies to this debate she will tell us that the same rigorous health and hygiene requirements that now exist in the United Kingdom will apply to all these imports.
With those few words, reiterating my regret at the haste and speed with which we are proceeding, but recognising that there is no alternative, I wish the Bill a speedy conclusion.

Mr. Eric Deakins: The Minister will have listened with interest to the reservations that have come from the representatives of all the parties here today about the haste with which the Bill is being rushed through. My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) and the hon. Members for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and Harborough (Mr. Farr) all expressed that fear. We look forward to the Minister's reply.
Other concerns were also expressed. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) asked a number of pertinent questions about animal health and public health in Northern Ireland, and what he said was echoed by the hon. Member for Harborough. I hope that the Minister will be able to give some reassurance on those matters. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Torney), who has had to leave us to go to a Select Committee, made a number of points, some of which I shall echo. One, in particular, was about consultation, not only with the Dairy Trade Federation and the National Farmers Unions of the four countries that make up the United Kingdom, but with the trade unions.
Will the Minister say something about the pattern of consultation from now on? Will the regulations that will be drafted under the Bill provide adequate scope, time and opportunity for the interested bodies and parties to make representations on their details? It seems that that is the best method by which they can ensure that their concerns about this enabling legislation are met.
We have not heard much in the debate—certainly from the Minister—about why the Bill is needed in the first place. It is needed because a judgment of the European Court went against the United Kingdom. That court overruled an action by the Minister of Agriculture which was designed to protect the interests of British consumers and Britain's dairy industry. As a member of the EC, we had no option but to obey that judgment. As we are entering upon the election campaign, let us be clear that the policies of the Labour and Conservative parties are very different. Labour's policy of withdrawal from the EC and the negotiation of a new and fairer relationship will make the present position irrelevant. Our renegotiation will not include acceptance of the absurdities of the CAP which are basically responsible for the introduction of the Bill, particularly those relating to milk and milk products.
The problem does not arise because of the inefficiency of the British dairy industry or the distributive trades. We all recognise that our agriculture and its support industries can compete well with other comparable industries in east or west Europe. The problem arises from the CAP and the system for milk and milk products. We cannot change the system, so the Bill is necessary. The Government have tried to do so half-heartedly, but not very effectively. On the continent, milk production comes mainly from small herds and the only means that the authorities in the Common Market have to guarantee even a modest living standard to small farmers and their families is to pay a high price for the end product — milk. That is a major objective of the CAP, but it is not one that can be changed because it is a basic principle. The producer price for milk on the continent is being used to do what ought to be done by a form of direct income support for small farmers. That will not happen while the existing CAP continues.
As a result of that disastrous system, milk prices have been raised year by year during our membership of the EC in order to raise farm incomes and that inevitable process has led to many disastrous results and made the Bill become necessary. A rise in milk prices to producers means higher prices for consumers, both for milk and milk products. That in turn leads to a decline in the consumption of milk. In Britain, milk consumption has been declining by 1.5 per cent. a year since 1976. It also means a decline in the consumption of butter. Butter consumption has been halved since 1975 and between 1980 and 1982 it has fallen by 20 per cent. in Britain. If we go on like that, not even the Bill will help to save the British dairy industry.

Mr. Geraint Howells: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman in full flight, but if his party is advocating that we should pull out of the EC, perhaps he is not aware of the present prediction that British milk production will increase by 30 per cent. Whether we have a 10 per cent. increase in the annual price review or a 20 per cent. reduction, dairy producers in Britain are geared to produce more. Therefore, what message has the hon. Gentleman for British dairy producers? If they increase production by 30 per cent., where will they sell the surplus?

Mr. Deakins: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman's figure of a 30 per cent. increase is accurate, but I accept that there is increasing production in Britain. That is one factor that will have to be taken into account in devising an alternative system of agricultural support in Britain under a Labour Government when we withdraw from the EC.
Higher milk prices mean over-production; the hon. Gentleman has just illustrated that point. That higher production cannot all be sold within the EC because consumers cannot afford the higher prices. We have been driven to costly intervention buying and the storage of stocks. Butter stocks have risen by 234 per cent. in the EC in the past 12 months. Skimmed milk powder stocks have risen by 122 per cent. Stocks are only one aspect of the absurdities of the CAP. They have to be paid for and that will mean a bigger cost on the agricultural share of the EC budget.
Surpluses have to be unloaded on to the world market—including the Soviet Union—at highly subsidised prices. It is amazing that under a Conservative Government, sales of butter to the Soviet Union are now about to be renewed at subsidies three times that at which


butter is subsidised to the British housewife. The Government give priority to the Russian housewife over the British housewife. That is a theme which will emerge in the coming election campaign.
There is also the effect of surpluses on the agriculture budget. It is estimated that in 1983 the cost of disposing of surpluses in the EC will be £3,500 million—a substantial increase on the figure for 1982. That will mean a greater strain on the Community budget. We are already facing a battle next month in Stuttgart on the rebate on our 1983 budget contribution. It will be made worse by this increase in milk production and agricultural production generally.
That is not the end of the story about higher milk production in the EC because dumping of those surpluses on world markets means a disruption of world agricultural trade and that hits some of the poorer countries. Last but by no means least, it raises the serious prospect of a trade war with our closest ally and friend, the United States, which has at least done something to try to restrict its dairy surpluses by freezing dairy prices in 1982 and 1983. What an appalling system it is that produces such disastrous results for milk producers and consumers and for taxpayers. It is completely absurd.
There is worse to come. Continental milk producers are turning to UHT milk as another method of unloading their unwanted surpluses—in this case, unloading it on the United Kingdom market because we have the best and biggest liquid milk market in the EC. The Bill, in spite of the deficiencies which have been pointed out by several hon. Members, is the start of a fight back and to that extent it is to be welcomed. It is necessary to safeguard public health because health and hygiene standards on the continent may not be as high as they are in Britain. I have yet to see any positive evidence to the contrary.
The Bill is also necessary, as my hon. Friends the Members for Harlow (Mr. Newens) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Torney) and the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) said, to safeguard doorstep deliveries. That is accepted, even by the Minister of Agriculture in his various statements. The doorstep delivery is a valuable public and social service, especially for the elderly, the sick and the disabled. It eases their shopping burden, because they do not have to carry cartons of milk home each day from the supermarket or corner shop as is done in the United States and on the continent. It is also a valuable service because the milkman acts as a good neighbour and keeps an eye on the elderly, the sick and the housebound. He can warn the emergency services if, for example, the empties have not been put out.
The Bill is also necessary, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South emphasised to safeguard employment in the dairy and related industries. It is estimated that about 75,000 jobs are at stake in liquid milk processing and distribution. Finally, the Bill is necessary to safeguard the interests of the United Kingdom milk producers. We have, as has been pointed out, the highest liquid milk consumption in Europe, if not in the world, and that would be threatened by the gradual erosion of doorstep delivery. It requires not more than 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. of consumers on a particular milk round to opt out and to buy cheaper milk, whatever its value or public

health standards, at the corner shop or the supermarket, to make that milk round uneconomic. The other consumers would then be forced to shop for milk themselves.
It is deplorable that the Conservative Government have not previously taken more basic action to prevent the problem of surplus milk. In 1979, the Conservative election manifesto said:
We will insist on a freeze in CAP prices for products in structural surplus. This should be maintained until the surpluses are eliminated.
Those statements were deliberate untruths, unless of course the document was a forgery. I have had no chance to have the paper tested but if it was not a forgery, it was a document containing fraudulent claims. The British people have paid a heavy price in unemployment, lost production and so on for the purchase of what probably can best be seen as a work of fiction. They should be on their guard against imitations in the coming general election.
Milk producer prices have been increased, despite that Tory pledge, year by year since the Tories came to power. The Minister of Agriculture is responsible. Although he will say that prices have been lowered in real terms, the over-production has continued. Since the right hon. Gentleman took over as Minister, he has made no attempt whatsoever to achieve a prices freeze at any of the price reviews. In fact, the Minister almost boasts of the fact that he has not achieved a freeze. In his statement on the price proposals he said that the Government had
pursued a policy of endeavouring to obtain prudent price increases." — [Official Report, 3 March 1983; Vol. 38, c. 386.]
Finally, we need a different system for avoiding surpluses of milk and milk products not merely in this country but in Europe as a whole. Labour's policy, which will be put to the people during the election campaign, will aim to do that. The Bill is a stopgap measure until we can free ourselves finally from the expensive and unhealthy embrace of the common agricultural policy. We support it as a short-term measure but the only way to ensure a long-term solution to the problems of the milk consumer and producer is to return a Labour Government on 9 June.

Mrs. Fenner: I am sure that the contribution of the hon. Member for Waltham Forest (Mr. Deakins) was more in the nature of an election speech in a marginal constituency than a contribution to a modest Bill which seeks to maintain the health standards of our milk. It is extraordinary to hear the hon. Member complaining about the cost of food in Europe when, under this Government, inflation has fallen and—perhaps the hon. Gentleman can explain this to the people when he is stomping the country—the the price of food over the past 12 months increased by less than 1 per cent., which is the lowest rate since 1964. That is the result of Government policies and of our membership of the EC. I know that the Left wing of the Labour party insists in the Labour manifesto that Britain leave the EC, so everything that the hon. Gentleman says today reflects his prejudices; his slip is certainly showing.
I should like now to deal with the responsible contributions to the debate on this modest Bill. I am grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the House who have spoken during the debate. I appreciate their concern about the Bill being debated during this accelerated and concertina-ed period before Parliament is dissolved. I am grateful for the questions they have asked about its


provisions because they enable me to clarify some aspects of the Bill and, I hope, to reassure hon. Members on both sides of the House.
It is true that the Bill does not provide specifically for consultation, mainly because it may be necessary to make or vary regulations under the Bill, as a matter of urgency, to maintain effective control over imports. Formal consultation with interested parties might prevent that. But it will clearly be necessary to take account of all of the views of those concerned and I am sure that there will be the usual full discussion with interested parties before regulations are made under the Bill. The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) made that point. This is an enabling Bill. The case will be made out in the regulations, on which discussions will take place. I trust that that will reassure hon. Members.
My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) and others asked why there was a need for haste. It is necessary to move quickly. I pointed out in my opening comments—I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield could not be present then—that the court's judgment was issued on 8 February. There is not too much haste about this—that was almost four months ago. If we did not comply quickly the question could be referred back to the court under article 171. In that event, our temporary regime could be overturned, leading to a free-for-all. I am sure that neither hon. Members nor the Dairy Trade Federation would want that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Spence) asked whether UHT milk carries foot and mouth disease and whether research had been carried out. The answer is no, as the temperatures used in the process would kill the disease.
Several hon. Members asked about doorstep deliveries; although this is not a health point, I can understand their concern. I should like to repeat that the judgment applies only to UHT milk, which tastes different from the fresh milk to which we are accustomed in this country, of which, I believe, we are the largest consumer in the Community. Hon. Members have made the point that UHT counts for such a small share—1 per cent.—of the United Kingdom market. I do not think that we should assume that our good liquid milk market will be swamped by imports. Even if UHT becomes available at a cut price through shops—the hon. Member for Waltham Forest portrayed a horrific picture of what would happen—it seems extremely likely that the majority of consumers would continue to prefer fresh pasteurised milk and, of course, the convenience of having it delivered regularly to the doorstep.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr)—I know that the right hon. Member for Down, South who always observes the courtesies of the House correctly, the hon. Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Torney), and for Harlow and my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton had to leave before the replies, but I understand very well their commitment in another room in this House to a Select Committee—asked about the animal health status of the Republic. I can assure them that the animal health status of the Republic is the same as Northern Ireland — that arrangements for import into Northern Ireland from Great Britain or other member states will of course take full account of animal health implications. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough

asked whether the same health and hygiene requirements will apply to imports. As my right hon. Friend has said, and as I said in my opening speech, the aim is to provide for imports, provided that they meet the same health and hygiene requirements on which, in the interests of public health, we insist for production and processing of our own milk.
The hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes), who opened the debate for the Opposition, made a number of points which were basically the points raised by the Dairy Trade Federation. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point about a certificate accompanying each assignment giving the details of quality, packaging and transport from the dairy. Such important points should be covered in certificates. The exact scope of the certificate will be determined when the discussions with the Commission and member states have been completed.
The quality requirement will apply to other liquids containing milk. The points to be covered by the certificates are still to be determined, but I can confirm —as I have already said several times—that the aim is to ensure that imports satisfy the same health and hygiene requirements imposed on our own production.
The hon. Gentleman asked about cooling and the word "use" in the bill. I assure him that "use" is already defined as including handling, treatment, storage, conveyance and sale—and that covers cooling and distribution. On his point about inspection and testing in the laboratory, it goes without saying that that will be carried out in appropriately equipped laboratories and by fully trained staff. It is not appropriate to discuss the manner of sampling and analysis in a Second Reading debate, but it will be defined in due course.
The hon. Gentleman queried the word "description" in the Bill. It covers his point about designation, type of milk, quality standards and other characteristics. On his point about registration, the proposed system of certification under clause 1(3)(c) will provide safeguards equivalent to those provided by a system of registration. Clause 1(3)(c) and (d) already enable us to provide that imported milk must be free from infection and contamination. Clause 1(5) makes it clear that it is an offence to import milk in contravention of those requirements.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend said that legal action could be taken if milk is imported in contravention of the requirements. However, she must admit, by having said that, that the milk will have actually arrived in this country. Is there any way of monitoring the position to ensure that imported milk does not contravene any of the high standards of health and hygiene regulations currently effective in Britain? If she can give that assurance, she will answer many of the reservations of the milk producers and distributors.

Mrs. Fenner: I can only confirm that the purpose and content of the regulations is to secure those same high standards that we already have in the production of our milk.
The hon. Member for Durham asked about semi-skimmed milk. That is covered by the definition, which is the same as that in the Food and Drugs Act 1955.
I hope that I have answered in some detail the points raised by hon. Members. I trust that the House will now give the Bill a Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mrs. Fenner.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Under the terms of the Business of the House motion, to which the House has agreed, further proceedings on the Bill stand postponed.

IMPORTATION OF MILK [MONEY]

Ordered,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision as to the importation of milk and as to imported milk and milk brought to Northern Ireland from Great Britain, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any administrative expenses incurred by a Minister of the Crown under the said Act and any increase attributable to the said Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act.—[Mr. Lang.]

Importation of Milk Bill

Considered in Committee.

[MR. BERNARD WEATHERILL in the Chair.]

Clause 1

IMPORTATION AND USE OF MILK

Motion made and Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Mark Hughes: In the Minister's very full reply to the Second Reading Debate, she did not say whether she had taken on board the manuscript amendment which proposed that clause 1 regulations be made in accordance and consonant with the Food and Drugs Act. If that was included in the Bill so that the dairy industry was absolutely clear that regulations made under the Bill were wholly consonant for importation with the regulations under which they had to work, many of their misgivings would be set at rest.
While I do not wish to delay the Committee, I must ask the Minister to give a rather more positive assurance on that important, although technical, point.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I wish to repeat my intervention in the Minister's excellent reply to the Second Reading debate. Is there any way in which the milk industry of Britain—the distributors, producers and processors —can be assured that any milk that enters Britain has been monitored at the far end—that is, before it arrives here—to ensure that it meets the standards that must be met by those who produce, process and distribute milk in Britain?
Like the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes), I am not in any way being awkward. We want to see the speedy passage of the Bill to expedite other measures to be debated later. However, my hon. Friend the Minister was somewhat circumspect in her response to my intervention. I appreciate that she had not had an opportunity to check with her advisers on the exact position. If she can now give an assurance that there will be adequate monitoring procedures on the other side of the channel—or on the other side of the Irish sea, as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) might observe—I am confident that the Bill will be expedited without further delay. However, we need that assurance, which will help the producers, the distributors and the processors. It will also help Conservative Members.

Mrs. Fenner: It is not appropriate to limit the Bill in the way suggested by the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes). The powers are best left wide and general.
I can only reiterate to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) what I hoped I had previously made clear, which is that the discussions will take place before the regulations, and will no doubt contain the points made by him.

Mr. Eric Deakins: If a consignment of milk comes into Britain under the terms of the Bill, and samples are taken for testing, will the consignment be held up pending the results of the tests, or, as is usual, will the test samples go to a laboratory with a wait of perhaps two or three days—I hope it may be shorter than that—


while the remainder of the milk is dispatched, distributed and possibly sold? Can the hon. Lady give some reassurance on that point?
I think that it is an offence under clause 1 if somebody knowingly imports contaminated milk. However, if somebody sells contaminated milk knowing it to be contaminated, that does not appear to be an offence under the clause, but it may be an offence under other legislation.

Mrs. Fenner: Consignments can, if appropriate, be held up. As for the legal point about knowingly importing contaminated milk, I shall need to take advice on that and write to the hon. Gentleman so that he has a comprehensive answer.

Mr. Deakins: Will the Minister also let me know about the sale of contaminated milk? As I say, importing it appears to be covered by the clause, and knowingly to sell contaminated milk, while not covered by the clause, may come under, for example, the 1955 legislation on food and drugs.

Mrs. Fenner: I will let the hon. Gentleman know about that too.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause I ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 58 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Dentists Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE

'(1) The Disciplinary Committee constituted under paragraph 12 of Schedule 1 to the principal Act shall be known instead as the Professional Conduct Committee.
(2) Accordingly in any enactment or instrument passed or made before the commencement of subsection (1) above for any reference to the Disciplinary Committee there shall be substituted a reference to the Professional Conduct Committee.
(3) In the said paragraph 12—

(a) in sub-paragraph (1) (Committee to consist of the President and ten other members of the Council of whom at least four must be elected members) for the word "four" there shall be substituted the word "five"; and
(b) for sub-paragraph (5) there shall be substituted—

(5) The quorum for a meeting of the Professional Conduct Committee shall be seven, of whom at least two shall be elected members of the Council and at least one shall be neither an elected member of the Council nor a registered dentist .". ' — [Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg): I beg to move, That the clause be now read a Second time.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I understand that it will be convenient to take at the same time Government new clauses 2 and 3 and Government amendments Nos. 1 to 35.

Mr. Finsberg: I am sure that it will be of help to the House if I say that all the amendments—both the new clauses and the consequential amendments—arise out of undertakings that I gave in Committee and that they raise no new points of principle.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

CONSTITUTION OF EDUCATION COMMITTEE

`In paragraph 10(1) of Schedule 1 to the principal Act: (Education Committee to consist of the President and eight other members of the Council who are registered dentists and certain nominated members) before the word "eight" there shall he inserted the words "at least".'—[Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3

NOTIFICATION OF REASONS FOR REFUSAL OF APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION ETC.

'Where the registrar refuses—

(a) an application for registration in the dentists register under section 2, 2A or 12 of the principal Act,
(b) an application for a direction to be given under section 13 of that Act, or
(c) an application to be restored to the register under section 18(2) or 21(4) of that Act,

he shall notify the applicant in writing of his reasons for refusing the application; and any such notification may be sent by post.'—[Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 1

CONSTITUTION OF COUNCIL AND REMUNERATION OF MEMBERS

Amendments made: No. 1, in page 1, line 13 leave out from 'the' to end of line 12 on page 2 and insert 'words "eighteen members" there shall be substituted the words "the President and twenty-nine other members".
(2A) For paragraph 2(2) there shall be substituted—
(2) Of the said twenty-nine members of the Council—

(a) eighteen shall be elected by registered dentists from among themselves;
(b) four shall be the persons who are for the time being the chief dental officers of each of the Department of Health and Social Security, the Welsh Office and the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland and the chief dental officer to the Secretary of State for Scotland;
(c) six, who shall not be registered dentists and of whom three shall be chosen for England and one for each of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, shall be nominated by Her Majesty on the advice of Her Privy Council;
(d) one shall be elected in accordance with paragraph 14(9) of Part II of this Schedule;

and of the remaining members, all of whom shall be registered dentists, the University of London (so long as it is a dental authority) shall nominate two, and every other authority which is for the time being a dental authority shall nominate one."'.
No. 2, in page 2, line 16, at end insert—
'(4A) In paragraph 3(3) (under which, of the eleven elected members, seven are to be elected in England, the Isle of Man and Channel Islands), for the words "eleven" and "seven" there shall be substituted the words "eighteen" and "fourteen" respectively.
(4B) For paragraph 5 there shall be substituted—
5.—(1) The General Dental Council shall elect a registered dentist as President from among the persons who are for the time being members of the Council.
(2) If the President when he takes office is an elected or nominated member of the Council he shall thereupon cease to be such a member, and the Council shall accordingly take the appropriate steps to fill the vacancy so created.
(3) The period for which the President shall hold office shall be the period for which a nominated member of the Council taking office at the same time as the President would hold office".'.—[Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg.]

Clause 2

CONSTITUTION OF EDUCATION AND DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEES

Amendment made: No. 3, in page 2, line 22, leave out Clause 2.—[Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg.]

Clause 9

VISITING OF DENTAL SCHOOLS AND POST-GRADUATE INSTITUTIONS.

Amendment made: No. 4, in page 5, line 11, leave out subsection (4).—[Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg.]

Clause 11

USE OF TITLES

Amendment made: No. 5, in page 6, line 16, at end insert—
'(3B) The Council shall cause a correct copy of any list for the time being kept by them in pursuance of subsection (3A) of this section to be appended to any copy of the dentists register printed, published and sold in accordance with section 20 of this Act.',—[Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg.]

Clause 13

ERASURE FROM REGISTER, OR SUSPENSION OF REGISTRATION, FOR CRIME OR SERIOUS PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT

Amendments made: No. 6, in page 6, line 41, leave out subsection (2).

No. 7, in page 6, line 44, leave out 'Disciplinary' and insert 'Professional Conduct'.

No. 8, in page 7, line 20, leave out 'Disciplinary' and insert 'Professional Conduct'.

No. 9, in page 7, line 37, leave out 'Disciplinary' and insert 'Professional Conduct'.

No. 10, in page 8, line 23, leave out 'Disciplinary' and insert 'Professional Conduct'. —[Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg.]

Clause 14

INTERIM SUSPENSION ORDER

Amendments made: No. 11, in page 8, line 40, leave out 'Disciplinary' and insert 'Professional Conduct'.

No. 12, in page 9, line 3, leave out 'Disciplinary' and insert 'Professional Conduct'.

No. 13, in page 9, line 38, leave out 'Disciplinary' and insert 'Professional Conduct'.

No. 14, in page 9, line 39, leave out 'Disciplinary' and insert 'Professional Conduct'.

No. 15, in page 10, line 8, leave out 'Disciplinary' and insert 'Professional Conduct'. —[Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg.]

Clause 24

DENTAL AUXILIARIES AND DENTAL AUXILIARIES COMMITTEE

Amendment made: No. 16, in page 16, line 14, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
'(3) For paragraph 14 of Schedule 1 to the principal Act there shall be substituted—


14.—(1) The Dental Auxiliaries Committee shall consist of—

(a) the President;
(b) at least eight (but not more than ten) other members of the Council, being either elected or nominated members or persons within paragraph 2(2)(b) of Part I of this Schedule; and
(c)nine persons not within paragraph (a) or (b) of this sub-paragraph.

(2) At least two of the members referred to in subparagraph (1)(b) of this paragraph shall not be registered dentists.
(3) Three of the nine members referred to in subparagraph (1)(c) of this paragraph shall be appointed by the Secretaries of State respectively concerned with health in England and Wales and Scotland and the head of the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland acting jointly, and two of the three so appointed shall be registered dentists who are or have been employed in the course of the provision of national health services.
(4) The three members so appointed and their successors shall retire together at the end of successive three year periods, and an appointment made in the course of one of those periods to fill a casual vacancy shall be for the remainder of that period.
(5) The other six of the members referred to in subparagraph (1)(c) of this paragraph shall be elected by members of all the classes of dental auxiliaries established by regulations under this Act in such manner and at such intervals as may be provided by rules made by the Council.
(6) The Council shall pay to members of the Committee who are not members of the Council allowances and fees at the same rates as in the case of those who are members of the Council.
(7) The chairman of the Committee shall be chosen by the Committee from among the members of the Committee who are registered dentists.
(8) The Committee may appoint a sub-committee, which shall consist of not more than nine members, to deal with disciplinary questions connected with members of a class of dental auxiliaries.
(9) The member of the Council referred to in paragraph 2(2)(d) of Part I of this Schedule shall be elected by the Committee from among its members who have been elected under sub-paragraph (5) of this paragraph; and a person so elected shall cease to be a member of the Council if he ceases to be a member of the Committee or when the term of office of elected members of the Council next expires in accordance with paragraph 3(1) of the said Part I, whichever first occurs." ' .—[Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg.]

Clause 26

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE DENTAL AUXILIARIES COMMITTEE AND APPEALS

Amendments made: No 17, in page 17, line 9, leave out `Disciplinary' and insert 'Professional Conduct'.

No. 18, in line 15, leave out 'Disciplinary' and insert `Professional Conduct'.—[Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg.]

Clause 28

PROVISIONS AS TO PROCEEDINGS BEFORE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE IN SCOTLAND AND NORTHERN IRELAND

Amendments made: No. 19, in page 18, line 14, leave out 'Disciplinary' and insert 'Professional Conduct'.

No. 20, in line 17, leave out 'words "the Disciplinary Committee"' and insert 'word "Committee" in the first place where it occurs'.

No. 21, in line 29, leave out 'Disciplinary' and insert 'Professional Conduct'.—[Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg.]

Clause 32

COMMENCEMENT, TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS

Amendments made: No. 22, in page 20, line 15, after `sections', insert
'(Constitution of Education Committee), (Professional Conduct Committee),'.

No. 23, in page 20, line 18, leave out '11' and insert `10, 11(b)'.

No. 24, in page 20, line 18, leave out 24 and 25' and insert 'and 24'.

No. 25, in page 20, line 27 leave out '(4), 2.' and insert
`(4B), (Constitution of Education Committee), (Professional Conduct Committee),'.

No. 26, in page 20, line 28, after first '2', insert `11(a),' .—[Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg.]

Schedule 1

FITNESS TO PRACTISE: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS

Amendments made: No. 27, in page 22, line 8, leave out 'Disciplinary' and insert 'Professional Conduct'.

No. 28, in page 22, line 24 leave out 'Disciplinary' and insert 'Professional Conduct'. —[Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg.]

Schedule 2

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 30, in page 26, line 8, leave out 'Disciplinary' and insert 'Professional Conduct'.

No. 31, in page 26, line 11, leave out 'Disciplinary" and insert 'Professional Conduct.

No. 32, in page 27, line 24, leave out paragraph 25. —[Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg.]

Schedule 3

REPEALS

Amendment made: No. 33, in page 28, line 38, column 3, leave out from 'onwards' to end of line 42 and insert `and paragraph 13'.—[Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg.]

Schedule 4

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS

Amendment made: No. 34, in page 29, line 9, leave out paragraph 1 and insert—
'(1) For the purpose of enabling—

(a) the President of the Council to take office, and
(b) The Council and the Dental Auxiliaries Committee to be duly constituted in accordance with sections 1(2) to (4A) and 24(3) of this Act,

at the commencement of those provisions the appropriate elections or nominations shall be held or made before that commencement.
(2) Rules under paragraph 3(4) of Schedule 1 to the principal Act shall, with the necessary modifications, apply to the election of members held by the Council for the purposes of this paragraph as they apply to an election to fill a casual vacancy; and any election held for those purposes—

(a) by the Council to elect the President, or
(b) by the Dental Auxiliaries Committee to elect a member of the Council,

shall be held in the like manner as if section 1(4B) or (as the case may be) section 24(3) of this Act were then in force.'.
No. 35, in page 29, line 36, leave out sub-paragraph (1) and insert—


'(1) Section (Professional Conduct Committee) of this Act shall not affect the hearing and determination of any case or other matter referred to the Disciplinary Committee before the commencement of that section.'.—[Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg.]

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

MARRIAGE BILL [Lords]

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 58 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

Mental Health (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1

CONSTITUTION OF MENTAL WELFARE COMMISSION AND REMUNERATION ETC. OF MEMBERS

Amendment made: No. 1, in page 2, line 19, at end insert
'; and such determination may make different provision for different cases or different classes of case.'. —[Mr. John MacKay]

Clause 2

DUTIES OF MENTAL WELFARE COMMISSION

Amendment made [First Scottish Standing Committee, 14 April]: No. 100, in page 2, line 35, leave out from `(2)' to end of line 39 and insert
'after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"(bb) in any case where—

(i) the authority for the detention of a patient

(A) has been renewed for a period of one or two years under section 39(2)(b) of this act; and
(B) is renewed for a further period on one year under that section; and

(ii) the patient has not, during the period referred to in subparagraph (i)(A) of this paragraph—

(A) appealed to the sheriff under section 39(7) of this Act; or
(B) been visited by the Mental Welfare Commission under paragraph (b) of this subsection,

to visit the patient before the expiry of the period of one year referred to in sub-paragraph (i)(B) of this paragraph, unless the patient has previously been discharged;".'.
Amendment to the amendment made: (a), at end insert
'", and on any such visit to afford an opportunity on request, for private interview to any such patient;".'. —[Mr. John MacKay.]

Further amendment made: No. 2, in page 3, line 23, leave out
`to whom section 60E of this Act applies'
and insert
'mentioned in section 60E(1) or (2) of this Act' .—[Mr. John MacKay.]

Clause 4

APPOINTMENT ETC. OF STAFF BY MENTAL WELFARE COMMISSION

Amendment made: No. 3, in page 4, line 26, at end insert
; and such determination may make different provision for different cases or different classes of case.—. —[Mr. John MacKay.]

Clause 7

APPOINTMENT AND FUNCTIONS OF MENTAL HEALTH OFFICERS

Amendment made: In page 5, leave out from the end of line 29 to the end of line 10 on page 6 and insert

APPOINTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH OFFICERS
7B./(1) A local authority shall appoint a sufficient number of persons for the purpose of discharging in relation to their area the functions of mental health officers under this Act.


(2) Any officer appointed by a local authority to act as a mental health officer after the date of coming into force of section 64(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (that is to say, 16th May, 1975) but before the coming into force of section 7 of the Mental Health (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 1983 shall be deemed to have been appointed under subsection (1) of this section as if that subsection and section 64(5)(bb) of the said Act of 1973 had come into force on 16th May 1975.
(3) On and after a day appointed by the Secretary of State by order, no person shall be appointed to act as a mental health officer under subsection (1) of this section unless he is approved by the local authority as having competence in dealing with persons who are suffering from mental disorder; and before appointing a person to act as a mental health officer, a local authority shall—

(a) ensure that the person has such qualifications, experience and competence in dealing with persons who are suffering from mental disorder; and
(b) have regard to such other matters as the Secretary of State may direct.

(4) No person appointed to act as a mental health officer before the appointed day shall continue so to act on or after the appointed day unless—

(a) he is approved by the local authority as having competence in dealing with persons who are suffering from mental disorder; and
(b) the local authority are satisfied that he has such qualifications, experience and competence in dealing with persons who are suffering from mental disorder as the Secretary of State may direct.".'—[Mr. John MacKay.]

Amendment made [First Scottish Standing Committee, 28 April]: No. 143 in page 7, line 38, at end insert
`as soon as practicable'.

Amendment to the amendment made: (a) at end insert
'and, in any event, not later than seven days before the expiry of the period of twenty-eight days beginning with the day on which the patient was admitted to a hospital—'.—[Mr. John MacKay.]

Amendment made [First Scottish Standing Committee, 28 April]: No. 177, in page 7, line 42, at end insert
' , unless he has previously done so under section 32A(5) of this Act.'".

Amendments to the amendment made: (a) leave out 'previously'.

Amendment (b) at end insert
'within the previous twenty-eight days'. — [Mr. John MacKay.]

Clause 13

POWER TO DETAIN PATIENTS ALREADY IN HOSPITAL

Amendment made: No. 4 in page 12, line 2 leave out `six' and insert `two'.—[Mr. John MacKay.]

Clause 14

SHORT TERM DETENTION

Amendment made: No. 3 inpage 13, line 40 at end insert
`and the Mental Welfare Commission'.—[Mr. John MacKay.]

Clause 18

GROUNDS FOR WITHHOLDING OF CONSENT TO DISCHARGE OF PATIENT

Amendment made: In page 17, line 27, at end insert—
'(3) After subsection (2) of the said section 44 there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(2A) An order for the discharge of a patient who is subject to guardianship shall not be made by his nearest relative

except after giving not less than fourteen days' notice in writing to the local authority concerned; and within that period—

(a) if it appears to the local authority that the ground set out in section 25(1A)(b) of this Act continues to apply in relation to the patient they shall inform the responsible medical officer of the notice given by the nearest relative; and
(b) if it appears to the responsible medical officer that the ground set out in section 25(1A)(a) of this Act continues to apply in relation to the patient he shall inform the local authority; and
(c) the local authority shall inform the nearest relative of the views taken by them and by the responsible medical officer,

and in that event—

(i) any order for the discharge of the patient made by that relative in pursuance of the notice shall cease to have effect; and
(ii) no further order for the discharge of the patient shall be made by that relative during the period of six months beginning with the date on which that relative is so informed"' .—[Mr. John MacKay.]

Schedule 2

THE MENTAL HEALTH (SCOTLAND) ACT 1960 (C.6I)

Amendment made: In page 50, line 14, after 'patient)' insert—

`(i) after the word "where" there shall be inserted "—(a)";
(ii) for the word "and" there shall be substituted the words "; or

(b) the local authority informs the nearest relative under subsection (2A) of this section".;'.—[Mr. John MacKay.]

TITLE

Amendment made: In line 2, leave out from '1960' to 'and' in line 5.—[Mr. John Mackay.]

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 58 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

EDUCATION (FEES AND AWARDS) BILL

Bill reported, without amendments; considered.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 58 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

LITTER BILL [Lords]

Ordered,
That in respect of the Litter Bill [Lords], notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Mr. Lang.]

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Ian Lang.]

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes to Six o' clock.